Army Psychologist-Who Ordered Torture Of Juvenile Detainee-Pleads 'Fifth' At Gitmo Trial

Army Psychologist Pleads 'Fifth' in Case of Prisoner 900
by Meteor Blades
Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 05:25:14 PM PDT

In a hearing Thursday to dismiss charges in the second war crimes trial at Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Diane M. Zierhoffer, a licensed psychologist who had ordered the torture of a juvenile detainee, refused to testify under Section 831, Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 31 prohibits compulsory self-incrimination as a right under the Fifth Amendment. And the judge in the case ruled that a Pentagon official cannot participate in the trial by military tribunal of Mohammed Jawad, a detainee captured in Afghanistan and held in extrajudicial detention at Bagram Theater Internment Facility and at Gitmo for the past five and a half years.

................

According to an unclassified but highly censored document that the anonymous source has read, when an interrogator came to Zierhoffer and said he thought the techniques being applied to Jawad should be temporarily halted because they were causing him to dissociate, to crack up without providing good information, she recommended that the torture continue. This was a clear violation of the Convention Against Torture, and a clear violation of Principle A of the American Psychological Association, the first sentence of which reads: Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. At the time, Zierhoffer was still a member of the APA, which she joined in 1997. Her membership lapsed in 2005.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/14/202415/685/395/568118

*******************

Today, Leonard S. Rubenstein, president of Physicians for Human Rights, which operates the Campaign Against Torture, sent a letter to the president and vice president of the APA:

And this scares the shit out of me. This is incredible. The beast needs to be stripped of all credentials and forcefully ejected from his profession.

The Psychiatrist in question is not a "he", but a "she".

Normally, I'd consider this nitpicking, but a number of people have made the same mistake, which made me think of Phil Zimbardo's research on cruel and inhumane behavior. The Milgram experiment was criticized by a vocal minority for its exclusion of female participants (for those not in the know, Stanly Milgram of Yale devised an experiment to test how willing people were to hurt complete strangers, if ordered to by complete strangers). The overriding opinion of Americans is that women are less likely to hurt fellow human beings, but this allegation was refuted by another psychologist who ran a Milgram-esque experiment using female participants. As it turns out, women are just as likely to hurt other people as men are.

A little off-topic, yes, but it is out there for those who are interested.

a female ---

and keep hoping that females will mainly be our whistleblowers ---

And was about to say; "Is there a reason you assumed this asshole was a man?"

And every other gal there needs to know why she's there.

The problem with making torture acceptable in "special cases" is that the definition of "special cases" keeps expanding.

I'm also glad that his co-defendants will happily testify against him for reduced sentences.

But not more so than the actions of her higher-ups who created the entire situation.

I wonder if Dr. Zierhoffer would feel different if it was her son or nephew being driven insane? It's nice to know that whole military oath and membership in the APA doesn't stand in the way of torturing a teen-ager. And since Jawad wasn't providing any information, apparently Lt. Col. Zierhoffer figured that the torture should continue just for the fun of it, without even the bad excuse that Jawad was giving up something useful.

Well, the APA has weighed in on Zierhoffer, and condemned her. Will there be any similar condemnation from the military? I'd bet a shiny nickel that the worst that might happen to Zierhoffer will be that she's passed over in the next round of promotions, and can't retire a full colonel. That will be deemed punishment enough.

:puke:

And at the intersection, there is human scum like Larry James:

"I am proud to be a member of the American Psychological Association, proud for what APA has stood for in these troubling times, and deeply grateful to the Association for supporting me and my colleagues in our quest to ensure that all in our custody are treated with human decency and respect."


Larry C. James
Colonel, United States Army
June 23, 2007



"Having custody and control over an individual is an awesome responsibility."


Larry James
Colonel and Psychologist
June 23, 2007



"This is my second tour at Gitmo, Cuba. I was also the first psychologist at Abu Ghraib. I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die. If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to get hurt."


Larry James
APA National Convention
August 15, 2007



Sounds good Colonel James. Great sound bytes. Good enough to convince thousands of psychologists that you're the real thing, as American as Stealth bombers and pre-emptive war. Who would possibly think that psychologists in the military would engage in torture after listening to you? Good enough that you became the poster child for the American Psychological Association as they pulled out all stops in their attempts to defeat those few psychologists opposed to torture, inhuman conditions and the disappearance of habeas corpus. They brought you all the way from Guantanamo for their song and dance show. Not even most psychologists, those who are supposed to understand human behavior, saw through your charade, as you convinced them that their professional association really IS on the side of truth and goodness.


http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Camp_7_and_the_Torturer's_Shrink

They do business together. Between then, they faked a special panel to establish the APA position on torture and they stacked it with military intelligence types. They showed up with a report draft and they made the panel spend all weekend discussing that draft instead of really talking about issues. The rest of the attendees weren't even allowed to take notes and they were not informed that half of this panel was from the military. It was all just window dressing.

Amy Goodman did great reporting on this travesty.

Ex APA President Linked to CIA Torture Program:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/15/headlines#7

(The upside is, once this all came out, there has been pushback.)

... you must have a good faith belief that answering questions will incriminate you and subject you to criminal prosecution.

Therefore, to invoke the 5th you must believe you have engaged in conduct which is criminal in nature.

Taking the fifth does not mean that you think you have engaged in conduct which is criminal in nature. It's just doing the right, smart thing when the justice system turns it's eyes on you. ANYTHING you say can be used to incriminate you, even if you are absolutely innocent. Anyone ever brought in for questions should immediately take the fifth...talking to cops is stupid. Even stupider with no lawyer next to you.

I'm not saying that this guy is not a criminal, and I am not desputing the matter, since I am basically ignorant about it. I just hate that ordinary people don't understand that pleading the fifth doesn't make you guilty of shit. It's the smart thing to do.

On edit: oops, it's a she not he. lol...see how ignorant I am about this case?

It may differ in degree, but it's still a fundamental disregard for human life.

to "talk"-


:nuke:


We cannot allow our country to do things we wouldn't want done to 'us'-

Until we live this truth, we'll suffer and die like those we treat with callous disregard

and ordinary civilians for PTSD, etc...collect on claims, collect "charity" and lecture stipends, and "special" self-pay hourly charges? Will they claim to have something, but not quite, like PTSD themselves? What heroic soldiers :sarcasm:. Those in the mind-healing arts that served there should hang their heads low as appeasers and perpetrators of war crimes if they stayed silent and remain so.

Isn't it sort of Hannibal Lector-like to up the deviancy of humans just for an opportunity to cash in? Who needs fava beans and a nice Chianti when their personal war chests are full and their school loans paid in full. There are native tribes that do eat the brains of their deceased relatives, if I'm not mistaken, though for spiritual reasons and contract CJ. What evil prions lurk in these "doctors" minds?

"Psychologists (with divided loyalties) strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm." parenthetical emphasis mine.

Does that mean their superior officers and puppet commander-in-tights who order torture or their "clients" who are ordered to torture or expand their orders because they could?

I've met the enemy; these folks know human nature. Sacrifice isn't something they're about to do so long as their personal agendas are advanced. At the risk of being hypocritical for secrets I've kept, we've truly lost the higher ground.

something about all publicity being good as long as they get your name right.

from RW Thinktanks and Shockjocks...ala Corsi....he's like a God to those who speak Mukasey.

It is the impeachable C-R-I-M-E (the spelling-out is mainly for Lil Nancy Nosee) that is most easily/quickly proven, in law and the public mind -- is most damaging to our moral standing (anything like "authority" is long gone) -- and is most likely to result in removal or bipartisan demand for resignations.

The Failure to Impeach for it sends the clearest message (or "optics" for you DC strategerists) of complicity/approval and impotence/weakness to the public/electorate (ourselves), to the world at large (our judges), and to our children and grandchildren (our legacy of shame).

Impeachment remains our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

We CAN still force it in spite of the Impeachophobic DC-Dem "leadership." Just keep talking impeachment to anyone you can.

And if you are still making any excuse or wasting effort on anything else -- including (genuflect) The Sacred National Election Horserace -- then you (yes, you personally) are part of the problem, not the solution.

--

As I understand it, the APA has taken a position against torture, but allows psychologists to work for organizations that use it. They just can't be involved directly.

I am glad we have her name and her identity. We need the others' names too. Don't let them destroy the records.

There are no other words necessary. Lock up the war criminal.

:(

My dyslexia is Freudian.

I can't wait until these people are in prison, we have competent people with integrity in charge, this nightmare is behind us, we can start healing, and finally move forward.

...means extreme trauma.

I assume this detainee was a teenager during the time of the torture. The article says that this detainee
was disassociating. That's so alarming.

Young children in traumatic situations will often disassociate because they lack the ability to cope otherwise.
Their cognitive functions aren't as sophisticated as an older person's. With very few options, they disassociate--
and completely numb out. As children get older, they handle trauma differently. Usually if a teenager
experiences trauma they will not disassociate, because they are more mature and able to react and think in ways
that help them cope.

If a teenager is disassociating, that means profound trauma is being inflicted that will have a lifelong impact.

Disassociation is an involuntary, subconscious response. The brain's survival mechanisms kick in and numb
out the brain--when the trauma is too overwhelming to endure. It's a very primal response.

This really, really makes me sick. It is absolutely disgusting.

This evil scumbag psychologist should be shamed and forced to answer these questions. NO human being
should be forced to endure this stuff. This is really unconscionable and it's so devastating.

How can anyone do these things and live with themselves?

The APA is just a disgrace. I dropped my membership years ago, as have many other psychologists.


"It is past time for the APA to explicitly and categorically reject the use of psychologists and psychology to perpetrate a widespread, command-ordered program of torture and abuse. General statements opposing torture fail to fully address the reality of what psychologists have done."

I refuse to belong or give money to them until they take a firm stance against psychologist participation in inhumane and criminal endeavors.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Doesn't that idiot realize the Constitution is null and void thanks to bushco?

There are some good things to learn benefit from in psychology and psychiatry, but there is clearly an UGLY side to the profession, and we should always be cautious of it.

This shows so clearly that shrinks don't necessarily have the best interest of patients at heart.

Their own interests, and their profit - motive are often paramount.

This should make ALL shrinks ashamed of their profession, and willing to reclaim it for more human ends!

as practiced in the earlier days was that they were instructed not to offer anything

to the patient or their families --- simply to mirror back to the patient what they

were saying -- same with the families! Of course, they didn't reveal these

details to the patient or their families!

"Murder on the Couch" details much more of the horrendous and violent treatment of the

mentally ill in the "olden days" --- !!! Shocking!!! and so, so sad!!

"Mirroring" was developed and popularized by Carl Rogers, one of the most eminent psychologists of the modern era. Rogers essentially founded the Humanistic approach to psychotherapy, the tenets of which state that "reality" varies from person to person, as there is no objective way to observe the outside world - all information must be processed and filtered through the mind. Thus, the best way to understand the behavior of another person is to view things through their internal frame of reference. Thus, the "mirroring".

Humanists maintain a therapist cannot fully comprehend what is going on inside another person's head, so the role of the psychologist in a therapy session should be to stimulate introspective thinking, so the patient can realize what is troubling them and take appropriate action towards fixing it.

Furthermore, revealing anything a patient says during a therapy session to the patient's family - short of any indication that he/she intends to harm others or himself/herself - is strictly forbidden under the patient's right to doctor-patient confidentiality.

Frankly, there is little to gain in pulling skeletons out of psychiatry's closet. It emerged during a period of time when there was no standard for scientific ethics - and before the nature of mental illness was properly understood. That is not to say we should forget the pitiful state of the mental health profession in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but you can hardly cast judgment down on the entire discipline of psychology based solely on the exploits of men and women who have been dead for the past hundred years.

Oddly enough at the moment I can't find a reference to the book at Amazon or in googling . . .
I have some comments in one of my journals on it --- but that's not too handy at the moment!
I believe the author's name began with a "D" ---

Further, it certainly wouldn't be supportive of anyone in suggesting that where there is a
vase, another individual may see a dinosaur.

We certainly also don't mistake the psychotic state as a normally functioning state of mind.

Therapy should also suggest friendship and trust --- not deceit, which is what I am talking
about.

As far as I would surmise, families wanted basic information -- not confidential information.
Families also had information to contribute. Further, the willingness to reveal that a
patient intends to harm himself/herself or anyone else would suggest to me a rather large
disclosure to families who could only be burdened by this knowledge.

Coming back to "talking therapy" which is what psychiatry is all about -- simply and merely
what it is all about --- Freud developed the first concepts of it . . . however, as with
much of what Freud did, he later changed much of his method. Originally, the patient was
HYPNOTIZED --

As Freud taught this method, his students began to have problems and it became clear that
not all patients could be successfully hypnotized. Therefore, in order to continue on,
Freud changed the method to simple talking/questioning -- minus the hypnosis.

Re this . . .

Frankly, there is little to gain in pulling skeletons out of psychiatry's closet. It emerged during a period of time when there was no standard for scientific ethics - and before the nature of mental illness was properly understood. That is not to say we should forget the pitiful state of the mental health profession in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but you can hardly cast judgment down on the entire discipline of psychology based solely on the exploits of men and women

Talking therapy was certainly considered part of medicine. And, therefore, "do no harm"
should have been the standard then and NOW. There is much of a negative nature to be sure
to be understood about psychiatry's past -- from electroshock treatments to using ice picks
to prick eyelids, etc. As much as possible, the public should be made aware of this
rather insane history of psychiatry and its "treatments" -- and be well remembered and not
repeated. I think we can judge an entire discipline based on its falsity, treachery --
not only based on the behavior of those "doctors" who were entrusted with patients long ago,
but in looking today at the failure of so many to condemn the torture of prisoners --
and sadly, where some have taken part in it.

Lastly, like Freud, talking therapy must be closely examined for its continuing falsity.

... so it hard for me to pinpoint precisely what you're trying to criticize. But as far as the rest of your argument goes:

Further, it certainly wouldn't be supportive of anyone in suggesting that where there is a
vase, another individual may see a dinosaur.

Mirroring isn't used to diagnose schizophrenia, or any other psychotic disorder, for that matter. The basic premise of mirroring revolves around the idea that everyone reacts differently to external stimuli, thus affecting their perception of reality. Hence, mirroring is useful in treating those afflicted with mood disorders or phobias - which are, essentially, mentally harmful reactions to external stimuli - not severe psychotic disorders.

We certainly also don't mistake the psychotic state as a normally functioning state of mind.

Again, the premise here is that there is no such thing as a normal state of mind. Everybody's perception of external stimuli is different. Thus, a "mental disorder" is not "abnormal" behavior, it is behavior that negatively impacts one's socio-occupational functioning.

Therapy should also suggest friendship and trust --- not deceit, which is what I am talking
about.

There is no "deceit" in mirroring. In fact, the overriding tenet of clinical psychology - the one tenet every clinical psychologist is supposed to obey - is to maintain unconditional positive regard for one's patient. Rogers didn't lie to his patients, he was Socratic with them. His style forced his patients to uncover the inner workings of their mind by exploring it themselves. Would you say this is more or less valid than a psychologist telling the patient what he or she thinks?

aaaaaComing back to "talking therapy" which is what psychiatry is all about -- simply and merely
what it is all about --- Freud developed the first concepts of it . . . however, as with
much of what Freud did, he later changed much of his method. Originally, the patient was
HYPNOTIZED --

Again, this is all ancient history. Freudian psychotherapy fell out of popularity by the mid-1900s, and it is now widely regarded by the sweeping majority of psychologists to be utter un-scientific crap. Freud's only claim to fame is that he essentially separated psychology from philosophy and made it a discipline of its own. His conclusions are dubious and it is worth noting here he never successfully "cured" a single patient who came to see him.

Contrary to popular belief, modern psychotherapy is not based on Freud's theories, nor is he held in particularly high regard.

Talking therapy was certainly considered part of medicine. And, therefore, "do no harm"
should have been the standard then and NOW. There is much of a negative nature to be sure
to be understood about psychiatry's past -- from electroshock treatments to using ice picks
to prick eyelids, etc. As much as possible, the public should be made aware of this
rather insane history of psychiatry and its "treatments" -- and be well remembered and not
repeated. I think we can judge an entire discipline based on its falsity, treachery --
not only based on the behavior of those "doctors" who were entrusted with patients long ago,
but in looking today at the failure of so many to condemn the torture of prisoners --
and sadly, where some have taken part in it.

Again, you have not properly identified what crime all modern psychologists are guilty of. It sounds to me you are expecting every modern psychologist to bear accept responsibility for early psychology's inhumane practices, which is completely absurd.

If you're so convinced that psychology is some "science of evil", I merely challenge you to sit through one psychology course at your local university. Figure out the times the larger classes meet and sneak in - no one will notice.

First, it was a quite startling and shocking book --- and I saw no exaggerations in it.
However, it was certainly buried, ignored.

I've just organized my journals so maybe around the time of the New Year, I can give you
more info on the book. It's odd that I can't find a reference on the internet --
certainly Amazon had info on it previously.


Re this --

Further, it certainly wouldn't be supportive of anyone in suggesting that where there is a
vase, another individual may see a dinosaur.

That was not in reference to "mirroring" --- it was in reference to the suggestion that patients
and others may have different REALITIES.

Re this . . .

Mirroring isn't used to diagnose schizophrenia, or any other psychotic disorder, for that matter. The basic premise of mirroring revolves around the idea that everyone reacts differently to external stimuli, thus affecting their perception of reality. Hence, mirroring is useful in treating those afflicted with mood disorders or phobias - which are, essentially, mentally harmful reactions to external stimuli - not severe psychotic disorders.

Neither did I suggest that . . .
Nor did I come anywhere near your description of "mirroring" in what I was describing.
Additionally, let's be clear that "mood disorders/phobias" are still chemical imbalances
in the brain. NOT something that is going to be cured with talking therapy.


In ref to my . . .

We certainly also don't mistake the psychotic state as a normally functioning state of mind.

you say . . .

Again, the premise here is that there is no such thing as a normal state of mind. Everybody's perception of external stimuli is different. Thus, a "mental disorder" is not "abnormal" behavior, it is behavior that negatively impacts one's socio-occupational functioning.

Again --- this is nonsense. And, of course there is a normal state of mind vs psychotic.
People who are psychotic and/or behaving in deranged ways are sidelined for care.
"Psychotic" isn't a difference in perception of external stimuli!
And, thus, Psychotic and "having a poor coping day" are two different things.

to my . .

Therapy should also suggest friendship and trust --- not deceit, which is what I am talking
about.

you reply . . .

There is no "deceit" in mirroring. In fact, the overriding tenet of clinical psychology - the one tenet every clinical psychologist is supposed to obey - is to maintain unconditional positive regard for one's patient. Rogers didn't lie to his patients, he was Socratic with them. His style forced his patients to uncover the inner workings of their mind by exploring it themselves. Would you say this is more or less valid than a psychologist telling the patient what he or she thinks?

What I was discussing was deceit --

To my . . .

Coming back to "talking therapy" which is what psychiatry is all about -- simply and merely
what it is all about --- Freud developed the first concepts of it . . . however, as with
much of what Freud did, he later changed much of his method. Originally, the patient was
HYPNOTIZED --


You reply . .

Again, this is all ancient history. Freudian psychotherapy fell out of popularity by the mid-1900s, and it is now widely regarded by the sweeping majority of psychologists to be utter un-scientific crap. Freud's only claim to fame is that he essentially separated psychology from philosophy and made it a discipline of its own. His conclusions are dubious and it is worth noting here he never successfully "cured" a single patient who came to see him.

Many would find it more convenient if we forgot "ancient history" --- but many others understand
the value in it. As I said, Freud is to be disputed/disrespected/challenged.

Nor did I suggest this . . .

Contrary to popular belief, modern psychotherapy is not based on Freud's theories, nor is he held in particularly high regard.

to my . . .

Talking therapy was certainly considered part of medicine. And, therefore, "do no harm"
should have been the standard then and NOW. There is much of a negative nature to be sure
to be understood about psychiatry's past -- from electroshock treatments to using ice picks
to prick eyelids, etc. As much as possible, the public should be made aware of this
rather insane history of psychiatry and its "treatments" -- and be well remembered and not
repeated. I think we can judge an entire discipline based on its falsity, treachery --
not only based on the behavior of those "doctors" who were entrusted with patients long ago,
but in looking today at the failure of so many to condemn the torture of prisoners --
and sadly, where some have taken part in it.

you reply . . .

Again, you have not properly identified what crime all modern psychologists are guilty of. It sounds to me you are expecting every modern psychologist to bear accept responsibility for early psychology's inhumane practices, which is completely absurd.

However, the conversation is NOT about "modern" talking therapy -- though of course that could be challenged -- but about the PAST and the event under discussion here re TORTURE.

Re this . . .

If you're so convinced that psychology is some "science of evil", I merely challenge you to sit through one psychology course at your local university. Figure out the times the larger classes meet and sneak in - no one will notice.

My conclusions were based on the PAST --- and, again, certainly we could challenge current
concepts.

I leave you now . . .

what has been attacked here is the little of the good that exists in the profession.

Our focus needs to be on the UGLY.... condoning torture is SHAMEFUL for the profession to be doing!

It bears no relationship to selling their professional souls for promoting drugs for the benefit of shrinks and PHARMCO, and torture.

And the school might consider revoking her doctorate, too - she obviously didn't learn the ethical basics required of someone at that level.

Wonder what happened to her when she was child, that would foster that type of twisted behavior.

Chances are, she had a perfectly normal childhood.

What fosters this sort of "twisted behavior" is a multitude of factors, the most important of which is deindividuation. In joining the military, going through training, being issued a uniform, being assigned a rank, given a new haircut, and having her first name taken away, this woman felt shielded by anonymity. Couple that with the fact that authority convinced her there was a group of people who were diametrically opposed to her way of life - the Arabs - she probably felt absolved of all her responsibility to treat her fellow human beings in a humane manner.

The Stanford Prison Experiment exposed all of this decades ago, yet nobody seems to know about it.

Western societies, which emphasize individualism and responsibility, easily fall prey to the Fundamental Attribution Error, which is the tendency to attribute the moral failings of others to internal, dispositional factors. In reality, behavior is determined primarily by external, situational forces. The right combination of factors can turn anyone into a torturer, just like those who participated in the SPE.

In cases like this, a few bad apples aren't spoiling the bunch. The barrel itself is rotten, and it is spoiling the apples.

I know I just "shot from the hip", but we seriously, we don't know why. We humans are very complex....

thanks for the link BTW. I will check it out....

I suggest picking up Dr. Zimbardo's book, "The Lucifer Effect". Decades after he performed the SPE, Dr. Zimbardo was called in as an expert witness on the trial of one of the Abu Ghraib torturers. He goes into great detail explaining the experiment, its implications, and how Abu Ghraib turned into a real-life "Stanford Pison".

It really blows me away how different we are, yet so similar... horror is as close as our nose sometimes

to insulate her from their effects.

The revelations from Milgram's obedience experiments were earth-shaking and caused big changes in phd programs (as well as further experiments such as Zimbardo's). When I went through my training, there was a lot of emphasis on how obedience is manufactured in organizations and the absolute obligation to remain ethically objective no matter what it might cost in career terms.

Maria Mandel

"The sadistic SS-Oberaufseherin Maria Mandel was born at Munzkirchen in Austria in January 1912 and joined the SS in 1938."

"She was reported to be highly intelligent and dedicated to her work. The prisoners however, referred to her as the beast as she was noted for her brutality and enjoyment in selecting women and children for the gas chambers. Soon she had become the feared chief-guard of Birkenau women's camp. "





Irma Grese

"After the war survivors provided extensive details of murders, tortures, cruelties and sexual excesses engaged in by Irma Grese during her years at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. They testified to her acts of pure sadism, beatings and arbitrary shooting of prisoners, savaging of prisoners by her trained and half starved dogs, to her selecting prisoners for the gas chambers."

"She habitually wore heavy boots and carried a whip and a pistol. She used both physical and emotional methods to torture the camp's inmates and enjoyed shooting prisoners in cold blood. She beat some of the women to death and whipped others mercilessly using a plaited whip.

In her hut was found the skins of three inmates that she had had made into lamp shades."

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~sfranco/guards.html


I just did a quick Googling but there are many other horror stories like these to be found.

Homo Homini Lupus:"Man is a wolf to man." Whatever the gender.

Jane Mayer exposed the APA-assisted torture scam in her recent book "The Dark Side." The whole point is to elicit false confessions that can be used to prop up the phony war on terror which includes the phony 911 attack. Why therapists like Zierhoffer choose to assist in neocon crimes is a delicate question but it appears that they're politically motivated.

It isn't so much about eliciting "false" confessions as it is about eliciting the "confessions" policy-makers want to hear. The reason why we are in Iraq is not because somebody flat-out lied to us. We are there because the policy-makers - Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz - were convinced Iraq was a threat, and found "intelligence" where there was none to be had... a la Jerry Falwell finding homosexuality in the Teletubbies.

As a psychologist, the good Doctor should have known torture is probably the least effective method of extracting intelligence ever devised by mankind. Chances are, she probably knew. However, it seems logical to assume somebody from above was pressuring her to get results, so "results" she then provided. The abuses at Abu Ghraib were the direct result of a stressed-out, over-worked cadre of weekend-warriors with little to no direction from their commanding officer.

Since it is not the apples that are rotten, but the barrel itself, don't be surprised when more stories akin to this one start popping up.

You're buying a line pushed in media interviews with Mayer and others that Cheney et al. were trying too too hard to protect us. Not so. There was never any threat to our "security" from Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran. It's all about the oil (and for some, other issues irrelevant to US security), and the torture curriculum, developed from an Army program called SERE, was implemented to pump out lies useful to the administration, and that includes confessions from KSM and all the other "bad" guys, not just the 86% of Gitmo detainees who were/are completely innocent.

Isn't that the way we get "results" down there in Gitmo?


But seriously, the way these psychiatrists allowed themselves to be used for cover is just sickening. So much for the Hippocratic oath.