Judge Tosses Detainee Confession Citing Torture

By DAVID McFADDEN

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) — A U.S. military judge barred the Pentagon Tuesday from using a Guantanamo prisoner's confession to Afghan authorities as trial evidence, saying it was obtained through torture.

Army Col. Stephen Henley said Mohammed Jawad's statements "were obtained by physical intimidation and threats of death which, under the circumstances, constitute torture."

Guantanamo's chief prosecutor, Army Col. Lawrence Morris, said he recognized how the judge made his decision and needed to study the ruling before making more comments.

Jawad, who was still a teenager at the time, is accused of injuring two U.S. soldiers with a grenade in 2002. He allegedly said during his interrogation in Kabul that he hoped the Americans died, and would do it again.

But Henley said Jawad confessed only after police commanders and high-ranking Afghan government officials threatened to kill him and his family — a strategy intended to inflict severe pain that constitutes torture.

"During the interrogation, someone told the accused, 'You will be killed if you do not confess to the grenade attack,' and, 'We will arrest your family and kill them if you do not confess,' or words to that effect," Henley wrote in response to a defense motion to suppress the evidence. "It was a credible threat."

Several hours after his interrogation, Jawad was turned over to the Americans.

Air Force Maj. David Frakt, Jawad's Pentagon-appointed attorney, said the ruling is a "further disintegration of the government's case," and that the Afghans' descriptions of Jawad's confession were never credible to begin with. He also praised the judge for "adopting a traditional definition of torture rather than making one up."

The judge said torture includes statements obtained by use of death threats to the speaker or his family, and that actual physical or mental injury is not required. "The relevant inquiry is whether the threat was specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within the interrogator's custody or control," Henley wrote.

Genital Mutilation Victim Gets a New Chance at Asylum in the U.S.

WASHINGTON — In a surprise decision welcomed by human rights groups, the Justice Department moved Monday to expand the opportunities for asylum for women subjected to genital mutilation.

Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey, a former federal judge, threw out a decision by an arm of the Justice Department denying asylum to a 28-year-old woman from Mali who had been subjected to genital mutilation as a girl. Forms of genital mutilation -- often performed under unsanitary conditions with rudimentary instruments -- are common as coming-of-age rituals in more than two dozen countries.

The September 2007 ruling by the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals and the panel's denial in April 2008 of a request for reconsideration had drawn criticism from immigration and refugee groups and medical ethicists. The board concluded that because the woman had already been mutilated, she no longer had a legitimate fear of further persecution, which is required under U.S. law before asylum can be granted.

But that decision, which was at odds with several federal courts, was replete with "legal and factual errors," Mukasey said in Monday's six-page order.

"To begin with, the board based its analysis on a false premise: that female genital mutilation is a 'one-time' act that cannot be repeated on the same women," he wrote. "As several courts have recognized, female genital mutilation is indeed capable of repletion."

He cited a case where an asylum applicant's vaginal opening was sewn shut five times after being opened to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth.

"The board was wrong to focus on whether the future harm to life or freedom that [the applicant] feared would take the 'identical' form," he added.

The Malian woman had expressed concern that if she were deported she would be forced into marriage, and that any daughters she might have would also face mutilation.

Mukasey's decision to intervene came as the woman's case was being appealed to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. His order -- that the immigration panel reconsider its position -- does not guarantee the woman permanent residency in the U.S., but legal observers said they doubted the agency would oppose the move.

"I think the response now is one of overwhelming relief and jubilation . . . and a feeling of hope that this will set a precedent for future cases," said Jen Smyers, a policy analyst with the immigration and refugee program at Church World Service, a New York-based humanitarian cooperative of churches.

Kevin Johnson, an immigration specialist and dean of the UC Davis School of Law, said the action was something of a surprise.

"This administration has been pretty tough on women who claim persecution," he said. "It is a positive step in the right direction.

"It is not a particularly human gesture to turn your back on people who have been previously persecuted. It is not a particularly generous way of looking at our asylum laws."

Since 1996, the U.S. government has recognized female genital mutilation as a form of persecution that could entitle a woman to asylum in at least some cases.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey intervenes in the case of a 28-year-old woman from Mali.

By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 23, 2008

American Psychological Association Members Pass Historic Ban on Psychologist Participation in U.S. Detention Facilities

Today, the membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a referendum banning participation of APA member psychologists in U.S. detention facilities, such as Guantanamo or the CIA's secret "black sites" operating outside of or in violation of international law or the Constitution. The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology congratulates our colleagues, and in particular, we congratulate the referendum authors – Dan Aalbers, Brad Olson, and Ruth Fallenbaum – as well as the activists withholding dues and otherwise protesting professional collusion with unethical behavior.

Dan Aalbers, one of the referendum’s authors, stated: "This is a decisive victory for the membership of the APA and for human rights advocates everywhere. This new policy will ensure that psychologists work for the abused and not the abusers at places like Guantanamo Bay and the CIA black sites. We expect that the APA's leadership will immediately take action to ensure that psychologists are removed from the chain of command at places where human rights are violated or said not to apply."

In recent years revelations from the press, Congress, and Defense Department documents revealed that psychologists have played a central role in Bush administration detainee abuse. These reports conclusively demonstrate that psychologists designed, implemented, disseminated, and standardized detention and interrogation practices that frequently amounted to torture.

The passage of this referendum constitutes a decisive repudiation of the APA leadership's long-standing policy encouraging psychologist participation in interrogations and other activities in military and CIA detention facilities that have repeatedly been found to violate international law and the Constitution. In 2005, the APA's orchestrated Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security [PENS] declared that psychologists' participation in interrogations in these sites helped keep interrogations there "safe, legal, an ethical." Although APA followed this report with resolutions ostensibly condemning participation in torture, the resolutions continued to permit psychologists to serve in sites where human rights are routinely violated. The APA membership has now rejected APA policy in favor of one refusing psychologist participation in the running of detention facilities operating against the law and professional ethics.

"For years APA leadership has insisted that our professions' contributions to the Bush administration detentions made things better. It turns out that the APA membership wasn’t convinced" said Stephen Soldz, a psychologist on the faculty of the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis and a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology.

Passage of the referendum culminates years of struggle by numerous APA members to change policies that conflict with the best traditions of psychology as a profession. The referendum is a clear statement that APA members take seriously the profession's highest ethical aspiration: "Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm." Members are not willing to continue colluding with the Bush administration's systematic policies of detainee abuse that often amount to torture.

Referendum proponents collected over 1,000 signatures, forcing APA to submit the policy change to a mail ballot of the entire membership. The ballots went out on August 1 and votes received as of Monday, September 15th were counted. The referendum passed with 8,792 [58.8% ] YES votes to 6,157 votes against. The turnout was the highest ever in APA history.

"With this vote APA members have taken a major step toward restoring unimpeachable ethical standards by prohibiting its members from participating at sites that violate human rights and international law. But until APA communicates this new policy to the White House, the Department of Defense and the CIA, the abuses might continue. We must assure that the policy is implemented quickly" said Steven Reisner, a New York psychologist who is running for APA President.

Passage of the referendum is an important first step in righting APA policies that have cast shame upon the profession. The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology calls upon APA to take additional steps to turn the organization around.

Although the referendum pulls psychologists out of detention sites where human rights are being violated, we call upon APA to take a further step and put APA policy in line with that of the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association and ban psychologists from any direct role in the interrogation of specific individuals in any national security setting.

We call upon the APA to initiate and fund an independent panel to investigate and create a public record regarding the participation of U.S. psychologists in torture and other detainee abuse. The panel should also investigate organizational, policy, and ethical policies contributing to this abuse and make recommendations for change.

The APA should proceed expeditiously to modify its ethics code to remove clauses allowing ethical violations when psychological ethics are in conflict with "law, regulations, or other governing legal authority."

The APA should act quickly on ethics complaints against psychologists reported to have contributed to U.S. torture and detention abuses.

Finally, the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology calls upon APA members to follow up this victory by electing a President, Steven Reisner, who is steadfastly committed to ending psychologist collusion with detainee abuse.

The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology includes Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, Steven Reisner, Stephen Soldz, and Bryant Welch

U.S. court rejects Salvadoran's asylum appeal

September 09, 2008|By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

A federal appeals court denied asylum Monday to a Bay Area man who said he had fled El Salvador after gang members beat him, killed his brother and threatened his family.

Jose Santos-Lemus said that the assaults and threats amounted to persecution aimed at his family and against young Salvadoran men who opposed gang violence, and that police in his native country were unable or unwilling to protect him.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a deportation order against Santos-Lemus, saying he appeared to have been "victimized for economic and personal reasons" and not because of his opinions or membership in a family or group.

Santos-Lemus said he had been targeted by members of Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13, a gang that was started in Southern California and has ties to El Salvador. Law enforcement authorities say it engages in drug dealing, weapons trafficking and extortion. San Francisco police say a man charged with murdering a father and two sons by shooting into their car on June 22 was an MS-13 member, although the man's lawyer denies it.

Santos-Lemus said gang members shot and killed his oldest brother in 2001, beat and robbed two more brothers, and sent many anonymous notes threatening his family over a four-year period, all because of perceived insults. He said he was beaten and stabbed by a group of MS-13 members in 2003 and left El Salvador after receiving a death threat in May 2004.

Santos-Lemus said he and his family had been too fearful to report any of the crimes to Salvadoran police, who they believed were involved with the gang. Although persecution by a foreign government is the most common reason for U.S. courts granting asylum, some applicants have won their cases by arguing that police tolerated criminal attacks motivated by the victim's views or social status.

His lawyer said Santos-Lemus now lives in a Bay Area community, which he did not specify. Santos-Lemus said two of his brothers have also come to the United States, but his mother is still in their hometown of Chalatenango, El Salvador, and two sisters and a brother live elsewhere in the Central American nation.

Santos-Lemus conceded that his relatives who still live in El Salvador have not been attacked by gang members. That undercut his assertion that he had been persecuted because of his family, the appeals court said. The court also turned back his argument that he had been singled out as an opponent of gang violence.

"The harassment appears to have been part of general criminality and civil unrest," Judge J. Clifford Wallace said in the 3-0 ruling. "There is no evidence that they targeted him because they perceived him to be a member of any kind of anti-gang group."

Senate Joint Resolution 19

On Preventing health professionals from engaging in coersive interrogations of detainees

To read the Senate Joint Resolution adopted by California Legislature aimed at preventing California health professionals from engaging in coercive interrogations of detainees at Guantánamo and other U.S. military prisons, click here.

Maputo Declaration Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The World Organization against Torture (OMCT) would like to draw your attention to the Maputo Declaration drawn up by a group of African NGOs committed to ending all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This Declaration was developed at an OMCT regional meeting in Maputo, Mozambique in May of this year. To read the declaration click here.

Torture Survivors Need More Help from California

This op-ed piece, written by Kathi Anderson, the Executive Director of Survivors of Torture, International in San Diego and Gregory Hall, a senior program officer with the California Endownment, urges legislative action to address the needs of torture survivors in California. To read the article, click 'read more.'

Torture survivors need more help from California

By Kathi Anderson and Gregory Hall -

Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, June 26, 2008
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B7

Imagine waking up one morning and instead of carrying out your daily routine, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and taken to a location where you are systematically and brutally beaten, with the fear that death would be the only escape.

That was a real experience for Carlos Mauricio, who was kidnapped in El Salvador in 1983 and tortured by his captors over a two-week period. Luckily, he survived to tell his story, and so have thousands of other survivors of torture now residing in California.

As detailed in last week's Sacramento Bee series on the treatment of terror suspects, torture isn't just something that happened in Central America in the 1980s. It's been used in the so-called war on terror, in the genocide in Darfur, and in numerous other conflicts where perpetrators - be they dictators, police, paramilitary forces, government officials or opposition forces - find ways to justify its use and avoid accountability.

Our state is home to the largest number of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in the United States. Many of them had to flee their homelands from unspeakable cruelty. Some were students, professors or other professionals who excelled in fields such as medicine, government, business, agriculture and community leadership, yet were targeted for persecution by their governments for what they thought, said or did.

Others were tortured as a way of punishing family members accused of opposition to political activities. Some were members of persecuted religious, ethnic, national or social groups. Others were in the wrong place at the wrong time, tortured as part of a government's campaign to terrorize and intimidate populations.

As expected, the lasting physical and psychological repercussions for survivors of torture can be a daily struggle.

Many suffer in silence as they strain to hold down jobs and adjust to a new life in the United States. This is made worse by the fact that most asylum seekers lack access to basic health care until they are granted asylum, which can take years. This presents a public health hazard, in addition to needless pain and suffering on the part of the asylum seeker.

Across the state, treatment centers and law firmswork to minimize these obstacles to care. In the Bay Area, the Center for Justice and Accountability, the Center for Survivors of Torture, the Institute for Redress & Recovery, and Survivors International provide torture survivors with the specialized care they need.

In Los Angeles, survivors can turn to the Program for Torture Victims and the Legal Aid Foundation. In San Diego, Survivors of Torture, International provides a holistic program of services. All the organizations are part of the California Consortium of Torture Treatment Centers.

Mauricio is an example of the positive impact these services can have on a survivor of torture. The centers address the physical and psychological effects of torture, pursue justice for survivors, assist families and provide communities of healing where survivors can build positive relationships.

Yet the centers struggle to meet the needs of torture survivors who have come from more than 100 countries, speak dozens of languages and dialects, and have complex health and mental health needs. States such as Minnesota and New York already have taken the lead in creating health care programs that provide assistance to survivors of torture. Unfortunately, California has been slower to recognize and respond to the needs of survivors.

Today is June 26, the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Representatives from the California Consortium of Torture Treatment Centers are convening in Sacramento to educate state lawmakers about the importance and effectiveness of torture treatment centers.

We encourage members of the Legislature to recognize this unique population, to bring them out of our state's shadows, and to join our effort to ensure torture survivors have access to the specialized treatment they need to become healthy, productive members of our communities. It will benefit us all.

About the writer:

· Kathi Anderson is the executive director of Survivors of Torture, International. Gregory Hall is a senior program officer with the California Endowment, which supports programs addressing the health care needs of torture survivors.

Global Solidarity Statement

International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims Statement: "Let's Erase Torture"

The International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) has released the statement of global solidarity against torture to be read on June 26th, The UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

STATEMENT FOR GLOBAL READING ON 26 JUNE 2008

Ladies and gentlemen,

For over a decade, the world has marked the 26 June as the occasion of the UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. On this day, thousands of individuals and organisations around the globe speak out against torture and insist that torture survivors’ needs and rights be fulfilled.

Among those who raise their voice on this day are the treatment centres and programmes affiliated with the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims – the IRCT. Today, on behalf of Survivors International, I am proud to read out this statement, which is being delivered by dozens of human rights defenders in many other countries across the world right now. It is a statement of global solidarity, to show that regardless of where we are, we raise a collective voice to say NO to torture. It is a statement in honour of those who have suffered under torture’s cruel hand; and a reminder to us all that no matter where we live or work, there are torture survivors among us. Daily they show extraordinary courage as they attempt to heal from the physical and mental wounds of their experience.

"Let’s erase torture" is the theme for the global 26 June campaign. With this theme, we’re calling upon policy-makers as well as the general public to act to eradicate torture, and to assist survivors toward erasing the scars of torture from their bodies and minds.

Rehabilitation services – such as medical care, counselling, legal aid and social support – are a way to heal those scars. Within the IRCT’s global membership of 139 treatment centres and programmes, each year more than a hundred thousand torture survivors and their families receive such services.

However, in spite of the vital services they provide, many of these centres struggle to find the resources to continue their work, and to extend their hand to those in need. But you can help by ensuring, in whatever capacity you are able, that they can keep their doors open. If you are a policymaker, you can help to prioritise rehabilitation services by passing legislation that supports survivors’ rights to treatment and redress. If you are a donor, you can financially support your local treatment centre or the IRCT. And as a citizen there are many ways you can offer your support - through donation of time, resources or money to your local centre or by speaking out about the importance of rehabilitation in your community.

Your efforts are important! Because sadly, torture is not a phenomenon that exists "somewhere else" – it is widespread in more than one hundred countries, and anyone can become its victim. The good news is that there are tools to help us wipe the slate clean and create societies without torture.

Among them is the United Nations Convention against Torture, which came into force on 26 June 1987. This convention commits the authorities in each and every country to actively prevent torture and to support survivors and their families when torture has taken place. Another key tool is the Convention’s Optional Protocol, which obliges its signatories to establish mechanisms for independent monitoring places of detention – one of the primary places where torture occurs. Important as they are, many states have not ratified these instruments, and among those who have, some continue to systematically practice torture and ill-treatment.

Ladies and gentlemen,

As concerned citizens we must call upon our governments to ratify and abide by these and other international conventions, which aim to protect men, women and children from the awesome power of the state. Speaking out against torture – breaking the silence – is a vital first step to bring perpetrators to justice and to honour survivor’s needs and rights.

Today, let us pay tribute to the dignity and strength of torture survivors everywhere. It is in their name that we issue the call "Let’s erase torture" – so that all of us can live in a world where the man-made disaster called torture is wiped away.

California Immigrant Policy Center Guide to Assisting Survivors of Trafficking and Domestic Violence in California

In January of 2007, California became the first state in the nation to provide assistance to survivors of trafficking, domestic violence and other serious crimes while they take steps to qualify for federal support. The California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC) in alliance with advocates for survivors of domestic violence and trafficking and the San Francisco District Attorney's Office, sponsored this legislation which has offered a veritable lifeline of support to trafficking and other victims, helping them and their children find a safe environment and become self-sufficient.

CIPC is happy to announce the release of a guide to assistance for victims of trafficking, domestic violence and other serious crimes in California. To read, click here

Although this document is a technical guide for advocates who help victims of trafficking and domestic violence, it is really much more. It helps open the door to a new life for people who in many cases have suffered unspeakable crimes and have no where else to turn. CIPC thanks authors Tanya Broder of the National Immigration Law Center and Sheila Neville of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles for the extraordinary work they did to provide this critical information.

The report, which is called "Benefits for Immigrant Victims of Trafficking, Domestic Violence and Other Serious Crimes in California," includes information about state and local benefits available to survivors of trafficking and others who are in that critical period when they have not yet qualified for federal aid, but are in great need of medical attention and other services to help them cope with the abuse they have suffered. These include health care services under Medi-Cal and Healthy Families, as well as assistance under the CalWORKs program, the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), nutrition assistance, job training and other critical services.

The 13-page report includes a helpful benefits chart that can be used to determine what benefits are available to a client and a list of websites for further information. It also includes a list of organizations that provide legal services if a client or advocate is having difficulties determining a person's eligibility for benefits.

Physicians for Human Rights Report: "Broken Laws, Broken Lives"

In Physicians for Human Rights' new report, Broken Laws, Broken Lives, we have for the first time medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of men who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay. These men were never charged with any crime. To download the Executive Summary of the free report Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by US Personnel and Its Impact, click here.

Miles: Torture and the Courage to be Inconvenienced

Bioethicist Steven Miles - author of Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror - recently gave a moving talk to St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church in which he deals with the moral challenges posed by torture and the ways in which torture affects all of us by destroying community.

Torture and the Courage to Be Inconvenienced

Steven Miles MD

[I was invited to give this talk at adult education at St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church on May 4, 2008 and lead a discussion of this topic on the evening of May 6. The Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul informed me that Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life information@mccl.org encouraged people to contact the diocese to not allow me to speak because I am pro-choice on abortion and pro-euthanasia. Although I am pro-choice on abortion, I have written and spoke against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. This talk on torture addresses neither. My wife and I have adopted and raised a disabled foster child. The Archdiocese unications@archspm.org instructed St. Joan's that I could not appear at the adult education in the church. St. Joan's arranged for a college venue.

The author hereby grants permission to redistribute, download, copy and use this material in any electronic or printed form. No further permissions need be requested.]

===========

I am deeply honored to be able to speak with you today about the issue of torture.

Torture is not an exotic or esoteric topic. Although we rarely speak of it, it has directly wounded most of us. It is government policy in more than half of the world’s 200 nations. Our relatives fled the torture in East Europe, Latin America, or East Asia. Some of us were dispossessed by torture which enforced United States racial policies. Some of us have lost colleagues to torture in mission. Some of us sent or lost relatives who fought against torturing regimes. Forty thousand families in Minnesota have a torture survivor; we all bear the costs of their diminished parenting abilities, earning power, and sadness.

My family has been touched by torture too. My wife’s ancestors disappeared in the Holocaust of Belarus. Our adoptive son survived the Cambodia’s killing fields and as a nurse put himself in service of the refugees of Ruanda. I have worked with survivors of torture on three continents and assist several groups, including Minnesota’s Center for Victims of Torture, which strives to treat or prevent torture.

=====

The word “torture” comes from the word for “twist” capturing the design of devices like the rack or the wheel that contort the body. We should however not allow our empathic recoil from the image of a person’s agony to cause us to miss the point that torture is aimed to destroy a community. The destruction of a person is the path-the destruction of a community is the goal. The Passion story has all the elements of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

The ostentatious and unnecessary use of an inside informer,

The mocking purple robe and the public label, “The King of the Jews,”

The scourging and the nails.

Jesus was not some Nazarene carpenter who was picked at random. He was selected and tortured in a manner that was designed to destroy the community carrying His message. In today’s scripture, Jesus reflected on that communitarian nature of his impending arrest and execution,

I glorified You on earth
by accomplishing the work that You gave me to do.
I pray for them. And I have been glorified in them.
And now I will no longer be in the world,
but they are in the world, while I am coming to You.
John 17:1-11a

Torture is generally used to attack and suppress civil society. This is why it is aimed at the monks in Burma, the political leaders of Zimbabwe, the playwrights of Czechoslovakia, the journalists of Russia, the students of Chile, or the union leaders of Uruguay.

In this use, torture is a strategy to maintain

• The corrupt against the civic minded,
• The empowered over the disenfranchised, and
• The best fed in lands where most are poor and hungry.

Torture is government by intimidation, horror, fear and division. It is antithetical to those who would create societies to flourish by lovingkindness, justice, and inclusion.

=====

In the still space of our confession, we must speak of our active and acquiescent, personal and collective, complicity with the culture of torture.

• We must acknowledge that torture is a problem for all of us. It has found fertile ground in the lands of Islam, on the Buddhist ground of Cambodia’s killing fields, in the fatherland of the Reformation, in the topsoil of communist nations, in the democratic motherlands of Turkey and the United States and in the loam of the Catholic lands of Latin America.

• We must confess that every people seem capable of torture, even the United States - Convener of the Trials at Nuremburg, co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and instigator of the Geneva Conventions for the protection against “torture, or cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment.”

• We should note that the National Catholic Reporter of March 24, 2006 reports that Catholics–more than the public at large, more than Protestants, and more than Evangelicals, support interrogational torture. Secular Americans were most likely to reject interrogational torture.

Then, we must turn from confessing complicity with the culture of torture to the abolition of torture and to reconciliation in societies of justice and lovingkindness.

=====

After the crucifixion, Jesus’ community-the real target of His torture–gathered at Olivet.

All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, Acts 1:12-14

They reaffirmed their faith in the message, the movement, and the kind of civil society that had been entrusted to them.

Whoever is made to suffer as a Christian should not be ashamed,
but should glorify God because of the name. 1 Pt 4:13-16

Reconciliation means accepting our responsibility for building a culture against torture.

We are responsible for knowing the facts. Research by the CIA, the Army, and the National Defense Intelligence University all show that interrogational torture is ineffective. It does not defuse ticking time bombs. The television show “24″ lies. Torture:

• Produces bad information that leads to bad policy and needless dangerous battlefield sorties.
• Radicalizes survivors
• Makes it impossible to recruit human intelligence.
• Alienates populations.
• Causes an enemy to fight to the death rather than to surrender.
• Undercuts the possibility of appealing for the humane treatment of our own soldiers who are taken POW.

We are responsible for resisting the culture of torture.

• Bishop Tutu and Nelson Mandela were freed by our solidarity with their cause.
• Our amens enabled Martin Luther King to beat back the culture of Jim Crow.
• Our complacency allowed Major Roberto D’Aubuisson to assassinate Archbishop Romero and his forces to oversee the defiling and murder of the Maryknoll sisters.
• Our complacency allowed the sadistic guards at Abu Ghraib to go about their business; but our unwillingness to put their photographs aside saved countless lives.

Oona Hathaway, a law professor at Yale University studied 160 nations some of which torture and others of which do not. She found that the witness of the Mothers of the Plaza in Argentina, the honesty of the Chilean Medical Association, or the dignified protests of the lawyers of Pakistan summoned nations towards curbing the scourge of torture.

In such facts and examples, we can discern the path of reconciliation.

We must summon the courage to be inconvenienced by the culture of torture.

We must accept responsibility for rejecting the culture of torture in our personal and collective actions, including our acts of citizenship.

We must lift our voices and hands in solidarity with civil communities of justice and lovingkindness in order to move from confession to the abolition of torture.

IMPORTANT NEWS: SJR 19 was passed

On April 21, 2008 the California Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 19 by a vote of 22 to 11. The resolution is authored by Mark Ridley Thomas and co sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles, The American Friends Service Committee, and the Los Angeles and Program for Torture Victims. The resolution sends a strong signal that we must protect California health professionals from complicity in torture by re-establishing ethics within our professional organizations and resolving that the state of California should request that the U.S. government remove California health professionals from settings that do not meet the international standards of moral, humane and legal conduct. We could not have done this without the hundreds of you who sent letters. Thank you and keep engaged. We will be sending letters to members of the Assembly in the next few weeks to encourage them to also pass this resolution.

Voted YES

Alquist, Elaine (D – Santa Clara)

Cedillo, Gil (D – Los Angeles)

Corbett, Ellen (D – San Leandro)

Correa, Lou (D – Santa Ana)

Florez, Dean (D – Shafter)

Kehoe, Christine (D – San Diego)

Kuehl, Sheila (D – Santa Monica)

Lowenthal, Alan (D – Long Beach)

Migden, Carole (D – San Francisco)

Negrete McLeod, Gloria (D – Chino)

Oropeza, Jenny (D – Long Beach)

Padilla, Alex (D – Pacoima)

Perata, Don (D – Oakland)

Ridley-Thomas, Mark (D – Los Angeles)

Romero, Gloria (D – Los Angeles)

Scott, Jack (D – Pasadena)

Simitian, Joe (D – Palo Alto)

Steinberg, Darrell (D – Sacrament0)

Torlakson, Tom (D – Antioch)

Vincent, Edward (D – Los Angeles)

Wiggins, Patricia (D – Santa Rosa)

Yee, Leland (D – San Francisco/San Mateo)

Voted NO

Aanestad, Sam (R – Grass Valley)

Ackerman, Dick (R – Tustin)

Ashburn, Roy (R – Bakersfield)

Cogdill, Dave (R – Fresno)

Cox, Dave (R – Fair Oaks)

Dutton, Bob (R – Inland Empire)

Hollingsworth, Dennis (R – Murrieta)

Margett, Bob (R – Glendora)

McClintock, Tom (R – Thousand Oaks)

Runner, George C. Jr (R – Antelope Valley)

Wyland, Mark (R – Escondido

ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING

Battin, Jim (R – Palm Desert)

Calderon, Ronald S. (D – Montebello)

Denham, Jeffrey (R – Merced)

Ducheny, Dense Moreno (D – San Diego)

Harman, Tom (R – Orange)

Machado, Mike (D – Linden)

Maldonado, Abel (R – Santa Maria)

Allen Keller, MD, Speaks Out Against Bush's Recent Veto

Allan Keller, who works for Survivors International, recently submitted an editorial to The New York Times voicing his dissent about President Bush's decision to veto the bill that would ban various forms of torture from being used by the CIA. Keller encourages other torture treatment centers and individuals to write to their newspapers and protest the acceptance of torture as a means of interrogation.

Re "Bush Vetoes Bill on C.I.A. Tactics, Affirming Legacy" (front page, March 9):

The torture victims from all over the world whom my colleagues and I care for each day remind us of the brutal reality that is torture and its devastating physical and psychological health consequences.

Methods innocuously referred to as enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, exposure to temperature extremes, sexual and cultural humiliation, and prolonged forced standing, which would have been banned under the proposed legislation, should be seen for what they are — torture — and we should not in any way be condoning or using them. The military has already agreed to this.

The president's veto does not make us or the world safer. To the contrary, it puts civilians living under despotic regimes at greater risk of being tortured, and sends a chilling message to humanity, including to the estimated 400,000 torture survivors now living in the United States.

Allen S. Keller
New York, March 9, 2008

The writer, a medical doctor, is director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture.

Latest on APA Controversy

Survivors International guarded about APA's Resolution on Torture Comments from SI Clinical Director, Uwe Jacobs, PhD San Francisco, CA, August 21, 2007 – The Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a resolution to re-affirm its condemnation of torture and other forms of abuse in the context of detaining so-called enemy combatants. While APA Ethics Director, Dr. Stephen Behnke, characterized the new resolution as “a step in the right direction”, Dr. Uwe Jacobs, Clinical Director of Survivors International, expressed mixed emotions and said the APA did not go far enough. “I am concerned that inserting qualifiers into the language in the manner it was done weakens the intent and enforceable standards. There is absolutely no necessity to do that if your only interest is to protect human rights”, said Jacobs, referring to a struggle he said the human rights faction of psychologists partly lost. “We wanted to simply say that sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation were prohibited, for example, and the leadership insisted that we insert qualifiers that require that the abuse causes lasting harm, for example, and we’re not sure that this can always be proved. What if this was done and somebody thinks it didn’t cause lasting harm? Does that make it ethical? You expect to compromise a little in any politics but this is a difference that’s hard to split.” Jacobs went on to say that in spite of its wonderful appearance as a human rights document, the passage of the new resolution suffered from problems, some in content and some more procedural, and pointed to the following issues: - A simple moratorium that would have asked psychologists not to work in detention centers in which human rights are known to be violated was rejected by the APA leadership; - The alternate resolution that was passed by the Council of Representatives, APA’s governing body, was introduced specifically for the purpose of not letting the moratorium resolution come to a vote; - Even though the APA is an accredited non-governmental organization at the United Nations, the resolution does not adopt the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) in its original form as its reference but the U.S. Reservations to the CAT. These reservations were articulated by the Reagan administration and are commonly regarded as weakening the CAT in questionable area of non-physical torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment; - The APA steadfastly refused to drop the qualifying statements with regard to sleep and sensory deprivation, in spite of repeated requests and explanations why they should not be adopted. “Only time will tell how much of a step this really was in the right direction”, Jacobs concluded, and a lot will depend on the advocacy APA is willing to put behind this resolution from here on forward. At least we have a clear prohibition of the most common techniques of mental torture, but we need to do more work to close all possible loopholes and to get our language absolutely clear.”

California Becomes First State to Condemn Use of Torture in 'War on Terror'

July 14, 2007

SACRAMENTO, CA – The California Legislature today adopted a resolution aimed at preventing California health professionals from engaging in coercive interrogations of detainees at Guantánamo and other U.S. military prisons.

Senate Joint Resolution 19 instructs the state's licensing boards to inform California doctors, psychologists and other health professionals of their obligations under national and international law relating to torture. The boards will warn the licensees that they may one day be subject to prosecution if they participate in interrogations that do not conform to international standards of treatment of prisoners.

"The resolution calls attention to the intolerable dilemma that torture presents when those who are supposed to be the healers in our society are involved in the abuse of prisoners," said Eisha Mason, associate regional director for the American Friends Service Committee, one of the organizations that sponsored the resolution.

State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles) introduced the resolution in response to evidence that – despite the medical oath to "first, do no harm" – some physicians, psychologists and other health personnel have been complicit in abusive interrogations of detainees by the military and the Central Intelligence Agency.

"As professional licensure and codes of ethics are regulated by states, California has the obligation to notify members of laws concerning torture that may result in their prosecution," said Ridley-Thomas.

SJR 19 aims to protect the integrity of the health professions and individual practitioners by informing them of their legal and ethical obligations, and giving them a legal reference to remove themselves from abusive situations should they have to contravene the orders of a military superior.

A survey of medical students conducted by the Harvard Medical School, published in the October, 2007 issue of the International Journal of Health Services, found that one-third of the respondents did not know that under the Geneva Conventions, they should refrain from participating in coercive interrogations.

"This is an important advance, not just in the U.S., but internationally as well," said Dr. Steven H. Miles, professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota. "More doctors abet torture than treat its victims, and it is time for them to be called to the mission of medicine—not to practice torture—and to be reminded that they will be held accountable to international law."

"No government has the authority to legalize torture," Miles added.

The resolution further requests that the Department of Defense and the CIA remove California-licensed health professionals from participating in coercive interrogations.

"This has been an effort for almost three years," said Dr. Jose Quiroga, himself a torture survivor and now medical director of Program for Torture Victims, a sponsor of the resolution. "The California Legislature is sending a message to the Federal Government that they are wrong, and I hope that other state legislatures will begin to do this."

The passage of SJR 19 makes California the first state in the nation to officially condemn the use of torture since the beginning of the "War on Terror." A measure currently under consideration by the New York State Legislature, which would prohibit the state's health professionals from participating in the torture or improper treatment of detainees, is expected to pass later this year.

"California's adoption of the resolution sends a clear message that we are going to live by the principles that this country is founded on," said Martha Dina Argüello, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, another of the resolution's sponsoring organizations. "We will not let fear erode our civil liberties and we will hold health professionals accountable to ethical and legal standards."

The California State Senate gave final approval to the resolution in a 21-13 roll call vote. On Tuesday, it passed the Assembly 45-31.

"Torture is much more than a political issue," Ridley-Thomas said. "It is an ethical, moral and spiritual issue that has not only become a shame, but it is an evil in our midst."

The Los Angeles offices of the American Friends Service Committee, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Program for Torture Victims coordinated the campaign in favor of SJR 19. The resolution had the additional support, through petitions and testimony, of numerous faith, human rights and medical groups including the California Medical Association.

From the Director’s Desk Do Psychologists Torture?

Survivors International Director and Clinicians confront the American Psychological Association (APA) about its reluctance to make a strong ban against psychologist's involvement with torture.

From the Director’s Desk
Do Psychologists Torture?
By Uwe Jacobs

Those who are familiar with the history of torture know the answer to the general question to be affirmative: psychologists, like all health professionals, have contributed to torture throughout history. But what about now, in the US? You would think that this specific question should be just as easily answered in the negative. And indeed the American Psychological Association (APA) has been asserting just that and issued a strongly worded resolution against torture at the last annual convention in New Orleans. And there is no doubt that this is true if we accept the definition of torture promulgated by the Bush administration: the stuff that requires damage comparable to organ failure.

By contrast, Vice President Dick Cheney said on a talk show: “dunking a guy’s head under water is a no-brainer”. He referred there to water boarding, which was referred to as the “standard French torture” in the Middle Ages. It is not a prank but a serious and frightening method of terror. Eric Lomax, a British POW, tortured by the Japanese in WWII, describes in vivid detail how horrific it was to be subjected to this form of torture in his autobiography The Railway Man. And what about sleep deprivation and sensory disorientation and all the other techniques admittedly used on enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay? Psychologists and psychiatrists have studied these phenomena for decades, often finding out that these things were so dangerous that volunteer subjects started having serious symptoms and that experiments needed to be stopped.

Now that evidence of these psychological torture techniques has come to light, some APA members are trying to get something done that seems simple and straightforward: stop the involvement of psychologists in the interrogation of enemy combatants until we either have all the facts on what has been done to prisoners or until Guantanamo Bay and other such facilities have been closed. The idea is that we should stop contributing to operations in that legal and moral black hole that has attracted world-wide condemnation. We want our APA President to tell the Pentagon the same thing that Dr. Sharfstein, our psychiatric colleagues’ former president told the military: in places like Gitmo you need to proceed without us.

Some colleagues say that psychologists are needed in these places because they have been useful in preventing abuses from occurring, that we need ethical watchdogs and whistle blowers. One such whistle blower, Dr. Michael Gelles, reported human rights abuses and helped to stop some of them. He has argued argued against the moratorium (11) by referring to his own actions. We have many questions for Dr. Gelles (15a) and others in that regard, and these questions mean no disrespect to him and others who have stood up for what’s right. Unfortunately, Dr. Gelles's reply (15b) was short of a real response. I asked him once more if he would not answer the specific questions. Now that the profession of psychology has been placed at the center of the torture controversy, we need these answers to be detailed and precise.

Torture talked about in the Media

Erik Gleibermann, former Survivors International Board Member, writes for Tikkun Magazine.

Gleibermann's article, "Mending a Torn Psychic Fabric: Torture and Tikkun Olam" highlights the strength and healing capacity of survivors of torture and the importance for ourselves and our world to support that healing. Gleibermann quotes Dr. Uwe Jacobs, Director of Survivors International, who says, "The key is that somebody who cares is there to listen to what has happened. The survivor does not have to fear being retraumatized by being misunderstood.” Survivors of torture have many varied ways of representing and healing their trauma, it is our job to listen. From the article we learn that listening well may mean hearing detailed accounts of the torture, it may mean hearing and witnessing a survivor's political analysis of the events leading to his/her torture, it may mean creating spaces for people to come together and create, it may mean giving resources so that survivors of torture have the economic and political safety to start their healing process. It is important that we all participate, as Gleibermann concludes, "As interconnected members of a global community, each of us, whether consciously or not, inevitably absorbs some level of the widespread trauma of torture. The direct survivors have been the ones conspicuously afflicted, but they carry the trauma of our entire society. And so their mending repairs the wider world."

Read entire Tikkun article

PINC Papers on the Responsibility of Psychotherapists in a Time of Torture

Read the papers presented at the Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California's conference entitled UNFREE ASSOCIATION: The Politics and Psychology of Torture in a Time of Terror.

On March 17, 2007, the Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California (PINC) held a conference in San Francisco entitled UNFREE ASSOCIATION: The Politics and Psychology of Torture in a Time of Terror. This conference brought together four psychologists who have been at the forefront of the ongoing debate within the APA about psychologists’ involvement in military interrogation practices. Two presenters, Neil Altman and Ghislaine Boulanger, have initiated actions to abolish psychologists’ controversial involvement in interrogation practices, and will discuss their differing positions toward the APA.

This particular debate raises a larger question about the role of psychologists as cultural and political witnesses/bystanders in a time of terror. Steven Soldz and Nancy Hollander provide a timely look at this question as it affects both our day-to-day practice and our position as psychologists and psychoanalysts in the cultural unconscious. In addition, Elissa Marder, professor of literature, examines the psychological impact of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs on American society.

Survivors International Devotes Program to Serving Survivors of Gender-Based Violence

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and SI Join to Advocate for Gender Asylum Seekers

Survivors International, which has provided comprehensive care for torture survivors for over 18 years, announces the commencement of its Gender Asylum and Recovery Project. Working alongside the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), and thanks to the generosity of the Jacob and Valeria Langeloth Foundation, SI will be dedicating services and staff towards addressing the needs of the growing population of asylum-seekers fleeing gender-based persecution. This Project hopes to become the catalyst for relevant treatment and international advocacy for those oppressed on the basis of gender or sexual minority status.

Only in the past decade has the multitude of gender-motivated persecution – from genital mutilation, domestic abuse, to hate violence – finally become recognized as legitimate grounds for asylum. Much of this is due to CGRS' pioneering legal work and favorable new legal precedents set by the Federal Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals. CGRS groundbreaking work includes successfully arguing the concept of "reasonable expectation of futility," demonstrating that whether or not gender asylum-seekers have gone to state authorities is often irrelevant to the fear of persecution as notoriously few police worldwide actually prosecute domestic or hate violence. These legal breakthroughs have opened a space for more and more fleeing gender-based violence to step forward to seek refuge and safety.

This critical shift has brought with it new needs; appropriate resources are required to medically and psychologically treat these survivors and to provide them a continuum of care to lead healthy, independent lives once again. SI, an expert in providing such services to victims of torture, hopes to step in to fill this gap and support the work of CGRS to advocate for this group.

Not only will SI clinicians support such claims with a higher level of documentation through medical and psychological examination and expert testimony, but their work will also further insight into the underlying effects of gender-based abuse. Understanding that eliminating fear of repatriation by granting asylum is only the first step in the healing process, SI will also provide comprehensive case management to clients, linking them to long-term psychological and medical care and social service referrals.

As with all of its services, SI will provide these at low to no cost to clients to help overcome the tremendous financial burden such clinical services often impose on asylum seekers, who often have little access to traditional sources of income.

The first of its kind in the United States, this program is intended as a model to spur torture-treatment and immigration service centers throughout the nation to provide relevant assistance to this population. SI also hopes to publish the research on care for those suffering gender-motivated violence to deepen an understanding of this reality in the broader medical community.

For more information on this program: Please contact Dr. Uwe Jacobs, SI Director at (415) 546-2080 x 104.
Legal Providers: To refer clients to this program, please see our client referral information page.