The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has released its report detailing how senior leadership at the Pentagon authorized psychologists to violate their ethics and break the law. The new revelations further confirm what the evidence in last week's "torture memos," and in earlier revelations, has shown: psychologists have justified, designed and implemented torture for the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense.

Please call President Obama at 202 456 1414 and ask him to investigate the US torture program. (Talking points are below the jump.)

Yesterday the President said he is open to some kind of investigation, but that he'd prefer to look forward and not back. We must tell President Obama that the only way to look forward is to establish a nonpartisan commission that fully investigates the US torture program. We need to know how our nation abandoned its historic commitment to human rights.

Call President Obama Today—202 456 1414.You can use this simple script to tell Obama that:

1. America deserves to know the truth about torture; those who broke the law must be held accountable.
2. This is not a matter or looking backward instead of forwards. This is a matter of justice and of ensuring this kind of horror never happens again.
3. I want accountability for the war crimes perpetrated in my name. This requires a commission—a full investigation, and full accounting, for criminal misdeeds.

As health professionals and human rights advocates, you have a special role to play. Medicine was weaponized to break bodies and minds: tell President Obama to ensure that the commission includes an investigation into medical complicity in torture. Tell Obama we are a nation of laws and that when crimes are committed, the perpetrators must be held to account. Only then can we truly move forward.

If you haven't already, please also sign our petition in support of this commission—and ask 6 friends to do the same.

Last night, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) released a report, developed over two years, detailing the origins and implementation of the Bush Administration's torture program (PDF, 15 MB). The SASC report is the latest and most comprehensive account of the Bush Administration’s regime of torture and the central role health professionals played. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chair of SASC, is calling for the Department of Justice to review the report and pursue any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, a move that PHR supports.

Steven Reisner, PhD, Advisor on Psychological Ethics at PHR, responded, saying:

Long before Justice Department lawyers were tasked to justify torture, US psychologists were busy actually perpetrating it. These individuals must not only face prosecution for breaking the law, they must lose their licenses for shaming their profession’s ethics.

Writing about the contents of the report released by SASC, which he chairs, Senator Levin said:

In my judgment, the report represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse – such as that seen at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan – to low ranking soldiers. Claims, such as that made by former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a "few bad apples," were simply false.

The truth is that, early on, it was senior civilian leaders who set the tone. On September 16, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that the United States turn to the "dark side" in our response to 9/11. Not long after that, after White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called parts of the Geneva Conventions "quaint," President Bush determined that provisions of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to certain detainees. Other senior officials followed the President and Vice President's lead, authorizing policies that included harsh and abusive interrogation techniques.

The record established by the Committee's investigation shows that senior officials sought out information on, were aware of training in, and authorized the use of abusive interrogation techniques. Those senior officials bear significant responsibility for creating the legal and operational framework for the abuses. As the Committee report concluded, authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody.

The SASC report confirms what PHR has been documenting since, Break Them Down, our first report on US torture in 2005, and subsequently in Leave No Marks (2007) and Broken Laws, Broken Lives (2008): psychologists have justified, designed and implemented torture for the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense. Senator Levin explained:

The Committee's investigation uncovered new details about the influence of SERE techniques on military interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). According to newly released testimony from a military behavioral scientist who worked with interrogators at GTMO, "By early October [2002] there was increasing pressure to get 'tougher' with detainee interrogations" at GTMO. (p. 50). As a result, on October 2, 2002, two weeks after attending interrogation training led by SERE instructors from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), the DoD agency that oversees SERE training, the behavioral scientist and a colleague drafted a memo proposing the use of aggressive interrogation techniques at GTMO. The behavioral scientist said he was told by GTMO's intelligence chief that the interrogation memo needed to contain coercive techniques or it "wasn't going to go very far." (p. 50). Declassified excerpts from that memo indicate that it included stress positions, food deprivation, forced grooming, hooding, removal of clothing, exposure to cold weather or water, and scenarios designed to convince a detainee that "he might experience a painful or fatal outcome." On October 11, 2002, Major General Michael Dunlavey, the Commander of JTF-170 at GTMO requested authority to use aggressive techniques. MG Dunlavey's request was based on the memo produced by the behavioral scientists.MG Dunlavey's request eventually made its way to Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel Jim Haynes' desk. Notwithstanding serious legal concerns raised by the military service lawyers, Haynes recommended that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approve 15 of the interrogation techniques requested by GTMO. On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved Haynes' recommendation, authorizing such techniques as stress positions, removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs), and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli.

The Committee's investigation revealed that, following Secretary Rumsfeld's authorization, senior staff at GTMO drafted a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the use of SERE techniques, including stress positions, forcibly stripping detainees, slapping, and "walling" them. That SOP stated that "The premise behind this is that the interrogation tactics used at U.S. military SERE schools are appropriate for use in real-world interrogations." Weeks later, in January 2003, trainers from the Navy SERE school travelled to GTMO and provided training to interrogators on the use of SERE techniques on detainees. (pp. 98-104).

Nathaniel Raymond, Director of PHR’s Campaign Against Torture, said:

The Senate Armed Services Committee confirms what we have long known—health professionals were the agents that spread the virus of torture. Now is the time for those who violated our laws and our values to be held to account.

PHR is renewing its call to Congress and the White House to immediately create a non-partisan commission to investigate the Bush Administration’s use of torture, with a specific focus on the role that psychologists and medical professionals played in its design, justification, supervision, and use.

John Bradshaw, JD, PHR’s Washington Director, said:

A non-partisan commission is required if the American people are to know the truth about our nation’s descent into torture. Congress must move quickly and show the world that we are serious about restoring our reputation as a nation that defends human rights and the rule of law.

Please join us in calling for a non-partisan investigation of the Bush Administration's torture program and the role that psychologists and medical professionals played in it. If you've already signed the petition, ask 6 of your friends to sign, too.

How Medical Professionals Rationalized the Bush Administration's Torture Program.

PHR responds to the release of the Senate Armed Forces Committee report on detainee abuse.

Inside the home of Bryan Page, PhD, PHR Advisor, who hosted a gathering to discuss harm reduction with US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (in yellow, seated on couch).

Members of PHR's Health Action AIDS team and I returned from Miami last week after organizing a global health house party with US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen(R-FL), Ranking Member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The room was packed with HIV/AIDS and harm reduction experts, health professionals, students, people living with HIV and community leaders on US needle exchange policy and its impact on the spread of global HIV/AIDS.

More than 20 local health professionals concerned and informed about needle exchange and harm reduction gathered at the home of Bryan Page, PhD, a professor at University of Miami. Everyone who was there could feel the incredible energy and interest present in the room.

The evening started with Paola Barahona, PHR's Senior Global health Policy Advocate, giving background information about the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange and the impact that ban has on US foreign assistance. Paola highlighted the key successes in PEPFAR reauthorization, including language addressing IDUs and new indicators that measure outreach, prevention and care initiatives directed at IDUs.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen talked about the successes of PEPFAR and the work to transform it from an emergency plan to a sustainable strategy in the reauthorization process. The Congresswoman's leadership in moving that legislation forward was critical. She then talked about Rep. Jose Serrano's Community AIDS and Hepatitis Prevention Act.

"I've been a convert to this," she said, referring to her recent support endorsement needle exchange services and legislation supporting it. With scientific information and continued input from her district, she has become a real champion on the issue and understands the importance of supporting these efforts locally, nationally and internationally. In fact, the Congresswoman was an original co-sponsor last year when the bill was first introduced and again this year when it was reintroduced in the 111th Congress.

One third of new HIV cases outside of Sub-Saharan Africa occur through injecting drug use, but less than 5% of injecting drug users have access to HIV prevention services. Needle exchange services have been shown to prevent the spread of HIV without increasing drug use, yet the 1988 ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs, affecting both domestic and international programs, remains in place today. Limited access to harm reduction services leaves injecting drug users at a higher risk of infection and impedes worldwide efforts to slow the spread of HIV. Education, advocacy and political will are critical to making progress against the HIV pandemic.

As the most senior Republican woman in the United States Congress, Rep Ros-Lehtinen displayed her commitment to her constituents, sitting among attendees and talking with them about the need for continued health professional advocacy to bridge the gap between science and policy.

Outside the home of Bryan Page, PhD, PHR Advisor, who hosted a gathering to discuss harm reduction with US Representative leana Ros-Lehtinen (center). From Left to Right: Paola Barahona, Senior Global Health Policy Advocate, PHR; Bryan Page, PhD, PHR Advisor; Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Pedro Joe Greer, MD, Former PHR Board Member; and Jirair Ratevosian, US Field Organzier, PHR.

After the event, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen tweeted:

After day of const mtngs at miami cong office, went to a reception of physicians for human rights: invld in fighting hiv/aids, malaria, tb.

If you would like to help the Health Action AIDS campaign build the health professional movement by hosting a local gathering near you, please contact me at 617-301-4212 or by email at jratevosian [at ]phrusa [dot] org.

And if you haven't already done so, please ask you member of congress to support the Community AIDS and Hepatitis Prevention Act of 2009.

Zimbabwe—once Southern Africa’s bread basket—is starving for food, for water, for justice, for peace.

Join Physicians for Human Rights and Amnesty International USA as we launch a petition and photo drive for Zimbabwe in honor of the country’s Independence Day—which is today, April 18.

Sign the Petition

Please sign the petition urging the United Nations and the African Union to send human rights monitors to Zimbabwe.

Submit a Photo

Join PHR and AI’s global photo petition.

• On the photo petition page, download the sign that reads "I am a human rights monitor for Zimbabwe."
• Photograph yourself holding the sign.
• Submit the photo with the upload tool on the photo petition page.
• We will put together the photos into a video montage to show our friends and colleagues in Zimbabwe that the world stands with them in their fight for human rights.

There can be no peace and rebuilding without human rights protection. Zimbabwe’s security forces are infamous for brutally silencing political opponents and violating human rights: this kind of impunity cannot continue. Human rights monitors are needed to bolster the stability of the unity government as Zimbabwe tries to rebuild its health system, its infrastructure, its politics, and the very fabric of society, which has been ripped apart by years of violence.

Help us reach 10,000 signatures in honor of this day, April 18, Zimbabwe Independence Day—a perfect day to celebrate new beginnings for a country too long torn by greed, corruption and human rights violations.

Major General Antonio M. Taguba (USA, Ret.) spoke at Harvard Law School about accountability for US torture (Lindsay Welch/PHR).

On April 14, Major General Antonio M. Taguba (USA, Ret.), the commander of the official 2004 US Army investigation into the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal, made a rare public appearance at Harvard Law School to give a lecture sponsored by the Harvard Human Rights Program, the Human Rights Advocates at Harvard Law, and Physicians for Human Rights.

General Taguba partnered with PHR last year to write his now famous preface to the breakthrough PHR report Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by US Personnel and Its Impact––medical and psychological evaluations of a dozen former detainees who were held at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram airbase.

General Taguba's talk focused on the importance of holding civilian policy makers from the Bush Administration accountable for their authorization of the use of torture and ensuring that the core traditions of the US military—honor, discipline and accountability—are restored and upheld. He said:

Accountability is a condition of employment and something that should be embraced if you're going to try to serve your country.

Taguba included not just soldiers and senior military officials in his discussion, but also contractors, members of the intelligence community and others who carried out detainee abuse for the US government.

Contractors are operating under a separate set of rules, which have exempted them from accountability for lawless behavior.

Nathaniel Raymond, Director of PHR's Campaign Against Torture, introduced General Taguba and said:

I don’t think the American people will ever be able to fully thank General Taguba for his service. But I think the best way we can thank him is for the story of America’s descent into torture and lawless to end with justice—for both the victims and the perpetrators.

In a recent letter to the New York Times, I suggested that donor governments maintain targeted sanctions against a small cohort of Zimbabwe's power elite, but that they should also now provide targeted humanitarian support to the struggling country in transition. Newspaper editors so value brevity but here in the blogosphere, where the real estate is cheap, I'll elaborate for some added clarity.

Chaos abounds in most news references to humanitarian aid and developmental assistance. Imprecisions in terminology breed poor policy. Here are some of the terms used in reporting about US relations with Zimbabwe:

• Foreign aid
• Foreign economic assistance
• Relief aid
• Relief assistance
• Development aid
• Developmental relief assistance
• Development and reconstruction assistance
• Disaster relief
• Food aid
• Humanitarian aid
• Humanitarian "plus"
• Emergency humanitarian assistance
• Emergency aid
• Emergency assistance
• Transition assistance

And so on. The table below organizes this morass of terms. Aid, assistance and relief are synonyms that can combine with any word in the left column. The rubric boils down, however, to two distinct types of foreign aid: humanitarian aid and developmental assistance.

FOREIGN
1. Humanitarian Food Emergency Disaster 2. Developmental Economic Reconstruction	Aid Assistance Relief

Humanitarian crises threaten the health, safety or well-being of a population that arise from armed conflict, epidemics, famine or natural disasters. In valuing human life, we practice benevolent treatment and provide assistance to others in need. This assistance may stem from private or public sources. When a government makes available such emergency assistance to countries or populations in need, it is termed humanitarian aid.

In addition to addressing immediate needs during times of emergency, donor governments also contribute to peace by offering developmental assistance. Such aid is often thought to follow acute humanitarian crises and assists with post-conflict reconstruction and long-term sustainable development.

But conflict is messy and obeys few rules. Conflict is non-linear. If it does follow a course, it's more like current flowing through a multi-track electrical circuit with numerous resistors and sources of voltage. Foreign aid should not be expected to progress neatly from humanitarian aid during the acute phase of an emergency to post-conflict developmental assistance. All aid is political, and donor governments must employ diverse strategies for different sectors to affect foreign policy and move toward peace.

Which brings us to Zimbabwe.

The United States government does indeed provide this country in transition with significant humanitarian assistance ($112 million for FY 2009). But the US has balked at providing developmental aid while Mugabe remains in power and human rights violations continue. So while the US government has contributed $95 million in food aid, it refuses to furnish funds to rehabilitate Zimbabwe's collapsed healthcare, water and sanitation infrastructure. Food aid is humanitarian, the other three things are development. That Zimbabweans should not die from malnutrition, but may die from cholera defies logic. But that is current US foreign policy.

Every day is a lost opportunity for thousands of people in Zimbabwe. Rigid distinctions between humanitarian aid or developmental assistance should not be obstacles. The US government should step up, fill the void, and save lives.

 

Karen Hirschfeld, PHR's Sudan Campaign Director, speaks about the crisis in Darfur (Jared Voss/PHR)

Women took center stage yesterday at Crisis in Darfur, a breakfast panel at the National Press Club, both as speakers and as figures in the peace process. The event was co-hosted by PHR and the Nobel Women's Initiative. Karen Hirschfeld, PHR's Darfur Survival Campaign Director, was one of several experts on Darfur who addressed the roomful of journalists and human rights activists.

"There is deterioration of the physical and psychological health of women in refugee camps," she said.

Karen presented data from an upcoming PHR report on sexual violence in Darfuri refugee camps in Chad. She was one of four members of a PHR delegation that interviewed 88 women in the Farchana refugee camp last November. Out of 88 women, Karen said, 15 were raped in Chad. 90% of the rapes occurred while the women were collecting firewood outside of the camp.

Security is a major concern for women, according to Carla Koppell, Director of the Institute for Inclusive Security. She urged Western and African governments and policymakers to include women in peace talks. According to Koppell, when Darfuri women were asked what their first priorities were, they responded: security on the ground and protection for civilians. These priorities differed radically from men's priorities, which concerned mostly power-sharing. Koppell added that including women in peace talks would be beneficial as it changes the incentive structure.

Jody Williams, who shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize with PHR, co-hosted the panel. She discussed the media's responsibility to accurately communicate what is happening to Darfurians, especially to women. This is not happening, she said, because the "official" story is always given more weight. Media reports usually focus on the oppressors, who have easily identifiable names such as "Omar al-Bashir," rather than on the oppressed—the nameless, unidentified, overwhelming masses.

Perhaps the most haunting words came from Emira Woods, a native Darfurian who works at the Institute for Policy Studies. Quoting a Darfuri woman, she said:

They are not allowing us to die with dignity… [This is] Stone Age slavery.

A stark reminder of the horrible conditions in which Darfuri women live every day.

Head on over to DarfuriWomen.org to watch the webcast from 8:30 to 10:00 am today (4/14), at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Physicians for Human Rights and the Nobel Women’s Initiative are holding a breakfast panel discussion featuring some of the leading experts on Sudan. The panel includes PHR’s own Karen Hirschfeld, Darfur Survival Campaign Director.

• Jody Williams – recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize (host)
• Nadia Bilbassy – Charters, Bureau Chief, Middle East Broadcast Corporation (MBC) (facilitator)
• Karen Hirschfeld – Sudan Campaign Director, Physicians for Human Rights (panelist)
• Emira Woods – Co-Director of Foreign Policy In Focus, Institute for Policy Studies (panelist)
• Carla Koppell – Director, Institute for Inclusive Security (panelist)

More info here.

Physicians for Human Rights Senior Investigator, Richard Sollom, published a letter in Friday's New York Times, in response to the Times editorial, Villains and Victims in Zimbabwe.

"Villains and Victims in Zimbabwe" (editorial, March 30) rightly calls on the United States and Europe to provide the fledgling unity government in Zimbabwe with increased financial resources.

Western governments should maintain sanctions against Zimbabwe's small band of villains who continue to keep the citizens of this once-prosperous country in poverty.

But these targeted sanctions must be balanced with targeted support, because Zimbabwe's health system has collapsed and millions are at risk of dying because of starvation, disease and uncontrolled epidemics.

The political situation remains precarious, but it is clear that there must be some kind of intervention to save lives. The government cannot do it without international support. While donor governments wait for a return to rule of law and respect for human rights before resuming direct development aid, more than 4,000 Zimbabweans die each week. Innocent civilians should not be caught in such politicized limbo.

The United States and Europe should provide targeted humanitarian assistance to the health sector for this struggling country in transition.