Total Pageviews

Friday, August 21, 2015

This is exactly what the victims are going through. This morning it was a sexual scene once again because I was not doing what these unethical assholes wanted me to do. It is sad that our senators and president DO NOT PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THIS TYPE OF ABUSE.  

Outside Psychologists Shielded U.S.
Torture Program, Report Finds
By JAMES RISEN JULY 10, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency’s health professionals
repeatedly criticized the agency’s post-Sept. 11 interrogation program, but
their protests were rebuffed by prominent outside psychologists who lent
credibility to the program, according to a new report.
The 542-page report, which examines the involvement of the nation’s
psychologists and their largest professional organization, the American
Psychological Association, with the harsh interrogation programs of the
Bush era, raises repeated questions about the collaboration between
psychologists and officials at both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.
The report, completed this month, concludes that some of the
association’s top officials, including its ethics director, sought to curry favor
with Pentagon officials by seeking to keep the association’s ethics policies in
line with the Defense Department’s interrogation policies, while several
prominent outside psychologists took actions that aided the C.I.A.’s
interrogation program and helped protect it from growing dissent inside the
agency.
The association’s ethics office “prioritized the protection of
psychologists — even those who might have engaged in unethical behavior —
above the protection of the public,” the report said.
Two former presidents of the psychological association were on a C.I.A.
advisory committee, the report found. One of them gave the agency an
opinion that sleep deprivation did not constitute torture, and later held a
small ownership stake in a consulting company founded by two men who
oversaw the agency’s interrogation program, it said.
The association’s ethics director, Stephen Behnke, coordinated the
group’s public policy statements on interrogations with a top military
psychologist, the report said, and then received a Pentagon contract to help
train interrogators while he was working at the association, without the
knowledge of the association’s board. Mr. Behnke did not respond to a
request for comment.
The report, which was obtained by The New York Times and has not
previously been made public, is the result of a seven-month investigation by
a team led by David Hoffman, a Chicago lawyer with the firm Sidley Austin
at the request of the psychology association’s board.
After the Hoffman report was made public on Friday, the American
Psychological Association issued an apology.
“The actions, policies and lack of independence from government
influence described in the Hoffman report represented a failure to live up to
our core values,” Nadine Kaslow, a former president of the organization, said
in a statement. “We profoundly regret and apologize for the behavior and the
consequences that ensued.”
The association said it was considering proposals to prohibit
psychologists from participating in interrogations and to modify its ethics
policies, among other changes.
The involvement of psychologists in the interrogation programs has
been a source of contention within the profession for years. Another report,
issued in April by several critics of the association, came to similar
conclusions. But Mr. Hoffman’s report is by far the most detailed look yet
into the crucial roles played by behavioral scientists, especially top officials
at the American Psychological Association and some of the most prominent
figures in the profession, in the interrogation programs. It also shows that
the collaboration was much more extensive than was previously known.
A report last December by the Senate Intelligence Committee detailed
the brutality of some of the C.I.A.’s interrogation methods, but by focusing
on the role of psychologists, Mr. Hoffman’s report provides new details, and
can be seen as a companion to the Senate report.
The C.I.A. and the Pentagon both conducted harsh interrogations
during the administration of President George W. Bush, although the C.I.A.’s
program included more brutal tactics. Some of them, like the simulated
drowning technique called waterboarding, are now widely regarded as
torture. The agency’s interrogations were done at so-called black site prisons
around the world where prisoners were held secretly for years.
The report found that while some prominent psychologists collaborated
with C.I.A. officials in ways that aided the agency’s interrogation program,
the American Psychological Association and its staff members focused more
on working with the Pentagon, with which the association has long had
strong ties.
Indeed, the report said that senior officials of the association had
“colluded” with senior Defense Department officials to make certain that the
association’s ethics rules did not hinder the ability of psychologists to remain
involved with the interrogation program.
The report’s most immediate impact will be felt at the association,
where it has been presented to the board and its members’ council. The
board met last week to discuss the report and is expected to act on its
findings soon. The association has since renounced 2005 ethics guidelines
that allowed psychologists to stay involved in the harsh interrogations, but
several staff members who were named in the report have remained at the
organization.
A C.I.A. spokesman said that agency officials had not seen it and so
could not comment.
Dissent began building within the C.I.A. against the use of so-called
enhanced interrogation techniques not long after its interrogation program
began.
In about late 2002, the head of the C.I.A.’s Office of Medical Services,
Terrence DeMay, started to complain about the involvement in the program
of James Mitchell, a psychologist and instructor at the Air Force’s SERE
(survival, evasion, rescue and escape) program, in which United States
military personnel are subjected to simulated torture to gird them for
possible capture. Mr. Mitchell had also served as a consultant to the C.I.A.
advisory committee that included two former presidents of the psychological
association.
One unidentified witness was quoted in the Hoffman report as saying
that doctors and psychologists in the C.I.A.’s Office of Medical Services
“were not on board with what was going on regarding interrogations, and
felt that they were being cut out of the discussion.” One leading C.I.A.
psychologist told investigators that Mr. DeMay “was berating Jim Mitchell
about being involved in the interrogation program,” and that Mr. DeMay’s
objections “related to the involvement of psychologists as professionals adept
at human behavior and manipulation.”
Mr. DeMay’s complaints “led to a substantial dispute within the C.I.A.,”
according to the report, and prompted the head of the agency’s
counterterrorism center to seek an opinion from a prominent outside
psychologist on whether it was ethical for psychologists to continue to
participate in the C.I.A.’s interrogations.
The C.I.A. chose Mel Gravitz, a prominent psychologist who was also a
member of the agency’s advisory committee. In early 2003, Mr. Gravitz
wrote an opinion that persuaded the chief of the agency’s counterterrorism
center that Mr. Mitchell could continue to participate in and support
interrogations, according to the Hoffman report.
Mr. Gravitz’s opinion, which the Hoffman report quotes, noted that “the
psychologist has an obligation to (a) group of individuals, such as the
nation,” and that the ethics code “must be flexible [sic] applied to the
circumstances at hand.”
But ethical concerns persisted at the C.I.A. In March 2004, other agency
insiders emailed the psychological association to say they were worried that
psychologists were assisting with interrogations in ways that contradicted
the association’s ethics code.
One of those who contacted the association was Charles Morgan, a
C.I.A. contractor and psychiatrist who had studied military personnel who
went through the SERE program’s simulated torture training, research that
showed that the techniques used on them could not be used to collect
accurate information.
Another, oddly, was Kirk Hubbard, a C.I.A. psychologist who was
chairman of the agency advisory committee that included two former
association presidents and on which Mr. Mitchell was a consultant. Mr.
Hubbard told the Hoffman investigators that he did not have concerns about
the participation of psychologists in the interrogation program, but emailed
the association because he had been asked to pass on the concerns of other
behavioral scientists inside the agency.
The ethical concerns raised by Mr. Morgan and others inside the C.I.A.
led to a confidential meeting in July 2004 at the psychological association of
about 15 behavioral scientists who worked for national security agencies.
This was followed by the creation of an association task force to study the
ethics of psychologists’ involvement in interrogations.
But association and government officials filled the task force with
national security insiders, and it concluded in 2005 that it was fine for
psychologists to remain involved, the report found.
The report provides new details about how Mr. Mitchell and Bruce
Jessen, another SERE trainer who would later go into business with Mr.
Mitchell, gained entree to the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center, which hired
them to create and run the interrogation program. After Mr. Mitchell
worked as a consultant to the C.I.A. advisory committee, Mr. Hubbard
introduced Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Jessen to Jim Cotsana, the chief of special
missions in the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center.
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Jessen were later hired as contractors for the
counterterrorism center, where they helped create the interrogation program
by adapting the simulated torture techniques from the SERE program, using
them against detainees. (This program is currently being used against citizens in the United States as noted by me)
Separately, Joseph Matarazzo, a former president of the psychological
association who was a member of the C.I.A. advisory committee, was asked
by Mr. Hubbard to provide an opinion about whether sleep deprivation
constituted torture. Mr. Matarazzo concluded that it was not torture,
according to the report.
Later, Mr. Matarazzo became a 1 percent owner of a unit of Mitchell
Jessen and Associates, the contracting company Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Jessen
created to handle their work with the C.I.A.’s interrogation program. Mr.
Matarazzo was also listed as a partner of the company in a 2008 annual
report, according to the Hoffman report.
Mr. Matarazzo said he had not read the report and could not comment.
Mr. Hubbard, after he retired from the C.I.A., also did some work for
Mitchell Jessen and Associates.
The report reaches unsparing conclusions about the close relationship
between some association officials and officials at the Pentagon.
“The evidence supports the conclusion that A.P.A. officials colluded with
D.O.D. officials to, at the least, adopt and maintain A.P.A. ethics policies
that were not more restrictive than the guidelines that key D.O.D. officials
wanted,” the report says, adding, “A.P.A. chose its ethics policy based on its

goals of helping D.O.D., managing its P.R., and maximize the profession.