August 21, 2007
OTTAWA – Protesters are accusing police of using undercover agents to provoke violent confrontations at the North American leaders’ summit in Montebello, Que.
Such accusations have been made before after similar demonstrations but this time the alleged “agents provocateurs” have been caught on camera.
A video, posted on YouTube, shows three young men, their faces masked by bandannas, mingling Monday with protesters in front of a line of police in riot gear. At least one of the masked men is holding a rock in his hand.
The three are confronted by protest organizer Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Coles makes it clear the masked men are not welcome among his group of protesters, whom he describes as mainly grandparents. He urges them to leave and find their own protest location.
Coles also demands that they put down their rocks. Other protesters begin to chime in that the three are really police agents. Several try to snatch the bandanas from their faces.
Rather than leave, the three actually start edging closer to the police line, where they appear to engage in discussions. They eventually push their way past an officer, whereupon other police shove them to the ground and handcuff them.
Late Tuesday, photographs taken by another protester surfaced, showing the trio lying prone on the ground. The photos show the soles of their boots adorned by yellow triangles. A police officer kneeling beside the men has an identical yellow triangle on the sole of his boot.
Kevin Skerrett, a protester with the group Nowar-Paix, said the photos and video together present powerful evidence that the men were actually undercover police officers.
“I think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful,” he said.
The three do not appear to have been arrested or charged with any offence.
Police confirm that only four protesters were arrested during the summit – two men and two women. All have been charged with obstruction and resisting arrest.
Veteran protester Jaggi Singh, who is helping to circulate the video as widely as possible, said all four of those arrested are known to organizers and are genuine protesters.
“But we see very clearly in that video three (other) men being arrested . . . How do (police) account for these three people being taken in, being arrested? Where did they go?” Singh said.
“I have no hesitation in saying they were police agents . . . and they were caught red-handed.”
Singh, a member of the Montreal-based No One is Illegal, believes the agents were meant to provoke a confrontation and give the police an excuse to use some of their “toys,” such as tear gas and rubber bullets.
“To a certain extent it’s self-fulfilling logic. You provide police with this kind of equipment and they end up using it and one way to justify it is to plant some people that toss a rock or two.”
Neither the RCMP nor the Surete du Quebec would comment on the video or even discuss generally whether they ever use the tactic of employing agents provocateurs.
“I cannot answer your question because I don’t have the information,” said Const. Kane Kramer, a spokesman for the RCMP at the summit.
GunGuys.com is urgently demanding that the National Rifle Association immediately remove Ted Nugent from his position as a board member of the NRA after Nugent threatened United States Senators and Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
This is the latest in a series of unacceptable extremist rhetoric — and in this case a threat against the life of U.S. Senators — from NRA role model and activist, Ted Nugent.
Renegade right-winger Ted Nugent recently went on a vicious onstage rant in which he threatened the lives of Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Decked out in full-on camouflage hunting gear, Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, “Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary,” he continued. “You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.” Nugent summed up his eloquent speech by screaming “freedom!”This isn’t the first time Nugent has been caught spewing hatred. Last January, the guitarist caused a scandal for Republican Texas governor Rick Perry when he, among other abhorrent comments, wore a Confederate flag shirt and insulted immigrants at Perry’s inauguration event. In July, Nugent was quoted in a Wall Street Journal story blaming “stoned, dirty, stinky hippies” for “rising rates of divorce, high school drop-outs, drug use, abortion, sexual diseases and crime, not to mention the exponential expansion of government and taxes.”
Gun Guys.com will have more to say about this vile and disturbing rhetoric from the National Rifle Association soon. But for now, it is incumbent on the NRA to forcefully and categorically distance itself from its board member, Ted Nugent, by demanding his immediate resignation from the board of directors.
Second, Gun Guys.com is calling on the NRA to apologize both to Senators Obama and Clinton and pledge to disavow all forms of hate speech and threats to political candidates from individuals affiliated — in this case as a member of its governing body — with the National Rifle Association.
In the 2000 presidential election campaign, Charlton Heston, then head of the NRA, called for the lynching of Al Gore during a Michigan campaign rally for George W. Bush.
The NRA’s failure to immediately remove Ted Nugent from the NRA’s board will signal its complicity in these contintued threats and vile rhetoric.
Despite warnings, officials used 43 months of severe isolation to force Jose Padilla to tell all he knew about Al Qaeda.
August 14, 2007
By Warren Richey
When suspected Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla was whisked from the criminal justice system to military custody in June 2002, it was done for a key purpose – to break his will to remain silent.
As a US citizen, Mr. Padilla enjoyed a right against forced self-incrimination. But this constitutional guarantee vanished the instant President Bush declared him an enemy combatant.
For a month, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been questioning Padilla in New York City under the rules of the criminal justice system. They wanted to know about his alleged involvement in a plot to detonate a radiological “dirty bomb” in the US. Padilla had nothing to say. Now, military interrogators were about to turn up the heat.
Padilla was delivered to the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., where he was held not only in solitary confinement but as the sole detainee in a high-security wing of the prison. Fifteen other cells sat empty around him.
The purpose of the extraordinary privacy, according to experts familiar with the technique, was to eliminate the possibility of human contact. No voices in the hallway. No conversations with other prisoners. No tapping out messages on the walls. No ability to maintain a sense of human connection, a sense of place or time.
In essence, experts say, the US government was trying to break Padilla’s silence by plunging him into a mental twilight zone. Padilla was not the only Al Qaeda suspect locked away in isolation. Although harsh interrogation methods such as water-boarding, forced hypothermia, sleep deprivation, and stress positions draw more media attention, use of isolation to “soften up” detainees for questioning is much more common.
“It is clear that the intent of this isolation was to break Padilla for the purpose of the interrogations that were to follow,” says Stuart Grassian, a Boston psychiatrist and nationally recognized expert on the debilitating effects of solitary confinement. Dr. Grassian conducted a detailed examination of Padilla for his lawyers.
Padilla is on trial in Miami on charges that he became a willing recruit and attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Padilla denies the allegations. Jury deliberations in the three-month trial are expected to begin this week.
Although the issue of Padilla’s treatment in the brig arose briefly in the Miami case, no judge has ruled on its legality.
According to defense motions on file in the case, Padilla’s cell measured nine feet by seven feet. The windows were covered over. There was a toilet and sink. The steel bunk was missing its mattress.
He had no pillow. No sheet. No clock. No calendar. No radio. No television. No telephone calls. No visitors. Even Padilla’s lawyer was prevented from seeing him for nearly two years.
For significant periods of time the Muslim convert was denied any reading material, including the Koran. The mirror on the wall was confiscated. Meals were slid through a slot in the door. The light in his cell was always on.
Those who haven’t experienced solitary confinement can imagine that life locked in a small space would be inconvenient and boring. But according to a broad range of experts who have studied the issue, isolation can be psychologically devastating. Extreme isolation, in concert with other coercive techniques, can literally drive a person insane, these experts say. And that makes it a potential instrument of torture, they add.
Interrogators say the whole point of an interrogation is to overcome a detainee’s will to resist. Some try to build rapport. Others prefer a tougher approach.
“These are interrogations, they are not job interviews. So there has to be a certain amount of unpleasantness about it,” says David DeBatto, a retired Army counter-intelligence agent and former interrogator. “You have to set the tone and the atmosphere. Some of that can include sensory deprivation, which means [the subject] is in a closed room, there is no sound, and he stays in there for various amounts of time.” At that point, the interrogator must make a crucial judgment. “The question is: How long is too long? Is it a day? Is it a week? Is it a month?” Mr. DeBatto says.
When then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved isolation as an aggressive interrogation technique for use at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Defense Department lawyers included a warning. “This technique is not known to have been generally used for interrogation purposes for longer than 30 days,” the April 2003 memo reads in part. Longer than that required Mr. Rumsfeld’s approval.
By April 2003, Padilla had already spent 10 months in isolation at the brig. Ultimately, he was housed in the same cell, alone in his wing, for three years and seven months, according to court documents.
“I’m not a psychologist, but if he is not profoundly psychologically disturbed from that experience then he is a stronger man than me,” says Steven Kleinman, a retired US Air Force Reserve colonel and former interrogator.
Padilla was visited by a military psychologist upon his arrival at the Charleston brig in early June 2002. The brief screening report says Padilla was not experiencing any mental-health concerns. But he didn’t see another psychologist again for nearly two years, according to a report filed by psychologist Patricia Zapf of New York, who examined Padilla and his brig records at the request of Padilla’s lawyers in his ongoing trial.
When the screening reports resumed in mid-2004, Padilla’s mood is described as “anxious” and later as “elevated.” There is no indication that he was given a full psychological evaluation, Ms. Zapf’s report says. “In my opinion, it appears unusual that someone held in solitary confinement for upwards of three years would not have undergone a more thorough and regular evaluation of [his] mental state.” The new Army Field Manual bars the use of isolation to achieve psychological disorientation through sensory deprivation. “Sensory deprivation is defined as an arranged situation causing significant psychological distress due to a prolonged absence, or significant reduction, of the usual external stimuli and perceptual opportunities,” the manual states. “Sensory deprivation may result in extreme anxiety, hallucinations, bizarre thoughts, depression, and anti-social behavior. Detainees will not be subject to sensory deprivation.”
Despite the tough words, the field manual offers only a general prohibition. So-called coercive interrogation methods – including isolation – have been specially authorized for certain units in the military and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The technique is not new. The Soviets used isolation and sensory deprivation to identify and discredit political dissidents. US prisoners of war confessed to nonexistent war crimes in the Korean War after similar treatment.
Fear of “brainwashing” prompted the CIA and Defense Department to underwrite research in the 1950s and ’60s into the impact of isolation and sensory deprivation. The findings were included in a 1963 CIA handbook, later declassified. The book discusses the possible use of such techniques, including isolation. But it warns of the “profound moral objection” of applying “duress past the point of irreversible psychological damage.”
That’s what happened in Padilla’s case, says Grassian. “It is clear from examining Mr. Padilla that that limit was surpassed.”
He has “undergone a profound, tremendously prolonged psychological stress involving extended periods of utter isolation and deprivation,” the psychiatrist writes. Grassian’s report concludes: “Given the extensive research on this issue, much of it funded by the United States government, it follows necessarily that the United States government was well aware of the likely consequences of its conduct in regard to Mr. Padilla.”
Officials have repeatedly said that the US doesn’t use torture. “The Department of Defense policy is clear – we treat all detainees humanely,” says Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Defense Department spokesman. “The United States operates safe, humane, and professional detention operations for unlawful enemy combatants who are providing valuable information in preventing further terrorist attacks.” He adds that no direct evidence has been presented that Padilla was tortured.
In preparing his report, Grassian studied the daily activity log maintained by staff members working at the brig. He discovered a particularly intense period of isolation from late November 2002 to early April 2003. Padilla has referred to this period as the “terrible time.”
“It was not unusual for Mr. Padilla to go four, five, or six days without even brief [visual checks] by the brig staff, who were, in any event, under instruction not to converse with him,” Grassian writes. Other than the brief checks by brig guards, Padilla went through stretches of 34 days, 17 days and 15 days without any human contact, the report says. “And when he did have such contact, it was inevitably with an interrogator,” Grassian says.
That was by design. Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, revealed a portion of the government’s interrogation strategy in a 2003 court affidavit. “The Defense Intelligence Agency’s approach to interrogation is largely dependent upon creating an atmosphere of dependency and trust between the subject and interrogator,” he wrote. “Anything that threatens the perceived dependency and trust between the subject and interrogator directly threatens the value of interrogation as an intelligence-gathering tool.” Admiral Jacoby wrote the affidavit to urge a New York federal court not to allow Padilla to consult his lawyer.
Grassian, the psychiatrist, disagrees with Jacoby’s suggestion that Padilla’s isolation would build trust: “What the government is attempting to do is create an atmosphere of dependency and terror.”
The issue is much larger than the Padilla case. This weekend, the American Psychological Association will meet in San Francisco. A vocal part of the group is urging the APA to embrace a ban on detention and interrogation work by its members. Psychologists should use their knowledge and expertise for healing, they say.
Others counter that using one’s professional expertise to help protect the country is an honorable motive. In addition, some say the presence of psychologists at detention and interrogation centers can help prevent abuses before they arise.
How a Cold War program inspired terror war interrogations
Many of the harsh interrogation techniques now used in the war on terror bear a striking resemblance to tactics of the former Soviet KGB.
There is a reason. After the 9/11 attacks, US forces put a premium on getting actionable intelligence from suspected terrorists. But most of them refused to talk. Some interrogators complained that traditional techniques that complied fully with the Geneva Conventions weren’t working.
So the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency reached back to a military training program with roots in the cold war. The program was originally designed to prepare downed American pilots and special-operations soldiers for capture during a war with the Soviet Union. The Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) school mimicked the anticipated Soviet interrogation techniques. According to former SERE instructors, the grueling program subjects trainees to aggressive questioning, isolation, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and simulated drowning (water-boarding). Soon, the coercive techniques were being used on detainees in Afghanistan; Iraq; Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; and the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.
“An almost invariable feature of the management of any important suspect under detention is a period of total isolation in a detention cell,” wrote Lawrence Hinkle and Harold Wolff, researchers funded by the Defense Department, in a 1956 article. “At all times except when he is eating, sleeping, exercising, or being interrogated, the prisoner is left strictly alone in his cell.”
The article continues: “He gradually gives up all spontaneous activity within his cell, and ceases to care about his personal appearance and actions.”
These tactics appear to have been used in Jose Padilla’s case by American military officials against an American citizen in a US military prison.
According to Mr. Hinkle and Mr. Wolff, the Soviets expected their isolation technique to break a man in four to six weeks. The prolonged isolation creates in the subject a powerful desire to talk to anyone about anything. This sets the stage for the interrogation.
If isolation wasn’t enough to adequately prepare the subject, the Soviets would ramp up the psychological pressure by adding sleep deprivation, stress positions, or temperature adjustments to make the cell either too hot or too cold, the article says.
The president and members of his administration have stressed that tough interrogation methods (which are similar but not identical to the old Soviet practices) are necessary to protect the country and prevail against Al Qaeda.
Gen. Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, recently highlighted the importance of this approach in a statement to CIA workers. “The information developed by our program has been irreplaceable,” he said. It “revealed priceless insights on Al Qaeda’s operations and organization, foiled plots, and saved innocent lives.”
Many members of the military say US interrogation policy isn’t tough enough.
“There’s something to be said for sending the message that the gloves are coming off,” says Capt. Bryce Lefever, a Navy psychologist and former SERE school instructor. “You don’t take a knife to a gunfight.”
Captain Lefever says it is unfair to compare US antiterror interrogations with Soviet interrogation techniques. “Their abuse was a systematic practice to conceal the truth,” he says. “If Padilla was abused, then it was for a righteous purpose – to reveal the truth.”
Lefever opposes the use of torture because in most instances it is ineffective. But sometimes, harsh and brutal tactics can produce results, he adds. The key is that interrogators must be careful in their questions not to telegraph an agenda to the subject, because if the technique is coercive enough, the subject will say anything to make it stop.
Others argue that isolation and coercive interrogation methods are counterproductive. “In interrogation, what we are trying to capture is somebody’s accurate and complete memory of an event, or a person, or a discussion,” says Steven Kleinman, an Air Force Reserve colonel and former interrogator who taught in the SERE program. But Soviet methods will produce unreliable Soviet-like results. “That is not an intelligence process. That is the antithesis of an intelligence process,” he adds.
August 26, 2007
By Barry Lando
Like a distant historical footnote to the bloody tragedy raging in Iraq, the trial of Saddam Hussein’s cousin, Chemical Ali, and 14 other former lieutenants of Saddam, began this week. The prosecutor accused them of perpetrating “ among the ugliest crimes ever committed against humanity in modern history.”
In a just world, George H.W. Bush and James Baker would also be in the dock.
Chemical Ali and his cohorts are being charged with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites following the failed uprising of 1991. It is the third trial before the Iraqi Special Tribunal for crimes against humanity committed during Saddam’s reign.
But, from the beginning, the Tribunal has been a uniquely Kafkaesque affair: first because of the total disconnect between the drama being played out in the court room and the slaughter going on outside the heavily fortified Green Zone. Secondly, by the fact that the horrific history of the 1991 repression is being recounted as if it occurred in an international vacuum. No mention whatsoever of the complicity of the United States and President George H.W. Bush in those bloody events,
Though the British Press has made some mention of America’s role, as far as I can make out, the major American media –and that includes the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, CNN and the Associated Press— have not made even the faintest allusion to the U.S. involvement.
As they tell it, closely following the script being enacted in the court room, it was all the fault of the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein and his beastly lieutenants.
There is no mention in the U.S media of the fact that it was President George H.W. Bush who, in February 1991, as the Iraqi army was being driven from Kuwait, called on the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
That call was rebroadcast in Iraq by clandestine CIA radio stations and printed in millions of leaflets dropped by the U.S. Air Force across the country. Problem was, the Iraqis didn’t realize until it was too late that Bush and James Baker, his pragmatic secretary of state, didn’t really mean it.
When it looked as if the insurgents might actually succeed, the American president turned his back. The White House and its allies wanted Saddam replaced not by a popular revolt which they couldn’t control but by a military leader more amenable to U.S. interests. They were also fearful that Iranian influence might spread in the wake of a Shiite takeover. In fact, however, American officials refused to meet with rebel leaders desperate to explain their cause.
Though Washington explained later explained they had turned against the uprising because key Arab allies in the region, like the Saudis, were fearful of a Shiite victory in Iraq, in fact, the U.S. later turned down a Saudi proposal to continue aiding the Shiites.
So, as the United States permitted Saddam’s attack helicopters to devastate the rebels, American troops just a few kilometers away from the slaughter were ordered to give no aid to those under attack. Instead they destroyed huge stocks of captured weapons rather than let them fall into rebel hands. According to some of the former rebels in Iraq, American troops prevented them from marching on Baghdad.
Then, as Saddam’s forces began carrying out the horrific acts of repression so chillingly described in the Baghdad courtroom, American forces were ordered to withdraw from Iraq. And all the while George H.W. Bush answered calls for the U.S. to act with denials that the U.S. had any responsibility in fomenting the rebellion in the first place.
In the end he agreed to provide a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds in the North, but that was only because the plight of the Kurdish refugees was being dramatically broadcast around the globe by CNN. Bush had no choice. There was no such TV coverage of the slaughter of the Shiites in the South. So no need for Bush to react.
There was similarly no mention in the courtroom—or in the U.S. press—of Washington’s support of Saddam during his slaughter of the Kurds—the subject of the previous trial of the Special Tribunal.
It may be understandable that no word of this U.S. complicity has surfaced before the Tribunal. After all, the whole affair has been financed and guided by the U.S. government and American advisers. There is also a stipulation in the Tribunal’s regulations that only Iraqi citizens and residents can be tried before the Tribunal for crimes against humanity.
What continues to be remarkable—and shameful– is the way in which the American media continues to play along with this historical farce.
(The description of the U.S. role in the 1991 uprising is recounted at length in my book Web of Deceit-a History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush—and in video form, from a segment of a documentary I did on the Trial of Saddam Hussein, which is posted on Youtube)