I have just become aware (thanks to Jim Tully) of the work, and comments on
this issue, of Prof Darius Rezali, a scholar influenced by Foucault, and
author of Torture and Modernity: Self, Society and State in Modern Iran.
(_http://www.reed.edu/~rejali/cv.html_ (http://www.reed.edu/~rejali/cv.html)
) . See his comments below.
regards
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: Darius Rejali [mailto:Darius.Rejali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: May 7, 2004 12:54 AM
To: Darius Rejali
Subject: Past Midnight Email
I apologize for the mass email. But nevertheless... I have been thinking of
all
of you. All I have been doing this week is answer questions from newsweek,
time, phil inquirer, balt. sun, the oregonian, kxl radio AM and the local
NBC
affiliat, and the Lehrer New hour? How do people live like this? ANyways, I
am
exhausted and wanted to take this midnight moment to remember all of you.
I'm posting two editorials that have been my output this week. I wrote the
first friday am almost as soon as I saw the photo of the hooded man on a
box. I
realized I was one of a few people who knew exactly what that was. And as it
turned out I was right, Hersch's article came out the next day confirming it
was
sleep deprivation and posture torture. This editorial has not found a home
yet,
but it has made it around the world on the net and back an the nation got
it
from two different sources. I think it's because at that time the media
couldn't utter the "T" word and kept saying "abuse."
The other editorial came out today. I wrote it monday. A little more in the
"fit" of the way they want to talk about this, but still making the same
point.
Look for me on the Lehrer show tuesday maybe. I got bumped once already form
Friday since boiling the sec def in oil on the Hill is the news for
tomorrow. So
I'm not counting chickens...
I am so saddened. After years of having missed my capacity for outrage,
every
now and again I think i almost have it again.
You should know I think of all of you alot as I do this. I find it all
really
scary, and your advice and reassurances have survived the years. No
response
necessary, given the deluge of emails, I'm unlikely to be able to reply.
Nevertheless, thank you,
Darius
Forced to Stand: An Expert Torture
Forced to stand on a box with wires attached to your fingers, toes and penis
all
night log. Just something that Specialist Sabrina Harman dreamed up in Abu
Ghraib prison? Think again.
This torture is well known to intelligence agencies worldwide. The CIA
documented the effects of forced standing forty years ago. And the
technique is
valued because it leaves few marks, and so nothing to document.
Forced standing was a prescribed field punishment in West European armies in
the
early 20th century. The British Army called it Field Punishment No 1,
though
the soldiers referred to it as "the crucifixion." The French Legionaires
called
it "the Silo."
By the 1920s, forced standing was a routine police torture in America. In
1931,
the National Commission on Lawless Enforcement of the Law found numerous
American police departments using forced standing to coerce confessions.
In the 1930s, Stalin's NKVD also famously used forced standing to coerce
seemingly voluntary confessions for show trials. The Gestapo used forced
standing as a routine punishment in many concentrationcamps. It even
created
small narrow "standing cells," Stehzelle, where prisoners had to stand all
night.
In 1956, the CIA commissioned two experts, Wolf and Hinkle, who described
the
effects of forced standing. The ankles and feet swell to twice their size
within
24 hours. Moving becomes agony. Large blisters develop. The heart rate
increases, and some faint. The kidneys eventually shut down.
In the mid-20th century, torturers learned how to use the swelling and
blistering to cause more pain. The South Africa and Brazilian police made
prisoners stand on cans or bricks, the edges causing excruciating pain to
the
sensitive feet. In 1999, the South African Truth Commission determined that
forced standing was the third most common torture during Apartheid after
beating
and electricity.
Hooding was a common feature of Brazilian and South African torture. In the
1970s, the Brazilians added the electrical supplement. When the hooded man
on
the can was electrified, the cans stuck to his feet een when he keeled
over.
Ironically, the Brazilians called the whole technique - hooded man on a can
electrified - "the Vietnam." The innovative technique combined tortures
used by
the North Vietnamese (forced standing) with tortures used commonly by
American
and South Vietnamese interrogators (electrical torture from field phones).
And now the ghost of "the Vietnam" appears in Iraq.
The American soldiers performed the torture, but someone taught them the
parameters. This kind of torture is not common knowledge, and if it were
not
for the photographs, no one would know that it had been practiced.
Today American interrogators are using "stress and duress" techniques in
prisons in Afghanistan and Diego Garcia. Officials refer to these
techniques as
"torture lite." Abu Ghraib gave us the first chance to see what these
techniques
really are: stealth tortures that leave no marks.
Torture like this doesn't just happen "over there." Torture like this casts
a
shadow back here for years aferwards. Soldiers trained in stealth torture
take these techniques back into civilian life as policemen and private
security.
It takes years to uncover the subsequent damage. The American style in
electric
torture in Vietnam appeared in Arkansas prisons in the 1960s and Chicago
squad
rooms in the 1970s and 1980s.
Likewise the excruciating water tortures American soldiers used for
interrogation during the Spanish American War appeared in American policing
in
the next two decades. For those who suffered from these tortures, it was
small
comfort that President Theodore Roosevelt felt it was a "mild torture," or
that
it was hard to see that anyone "was seriously damaged," or that, on Memorial
Day
1902, the President regretted the "few acts of cruelty" American troops had
performed.
When will we ever learn?
Darius Rejali is a nationally recognized expert on torture and
interrogation,
the author of Torture and Democracy (forthcoming Princeton) and a 2003
Carnegie
Scholar. He is an Associat Professor of Political Science at Reed College.
Not as Bad as Terrorism?
Whatever happened at Abu Ghuraib, surely it is not as bad as the killing and
mutilation of the four contractors in Falluja or the mass murder on 9/11?
On the contrary, no act of terrorism could have done as much damage to our
intelligence gathering capabilities as the torture at Abu Ghuraib. Acts of
terrorism killed people, but they did not undermine the trust on which good
intelligence depends.
Successful police and intelligence work depends on public cooperation. In
our
societies, police uncover crimes most of the time because people tell them
and
supply the witnesses and the information.
Since the 1970s, a large body of research has shown that unless the public
specifically identifies suspects to the police, the chances that a crime
will be
solved falls to about 10%. Only a small percentage of crimes are discovered
or
solved with techniques like fingerprinting, DNA sampling and offender
profiling.
Polie in long term dictatorships like the Chinese and Soviets also know the
importance of public co-operation for solving crimes. Where they can't get
public cooperation for some kinds of crimes (crimes against state property),
they create an alternative human intelligence system, informants.
Torture is good for intimidation and false confessions to put someone away.
But
can torture produce more reliable information than public co-operation or
technological monitoring? Even these states know you would be better off
hiring
a psychic.
The bottom line is the always the same: Good intelligence requires humans
willing to trust government enough to work with it. Torture is always the
sign
that the government either does not enjoy the trust of the people it governs
or
that it cannot recruit informers into a system of surveillance. In both
cases,
torture for information is a sign of institutional decay and desperation -
as
Saddam Hussein's Iraq clearly demonstrated.
Torture accelerates this process, estroying the bonds of loyalty, respect
and
trust that keeps information flowing. When citizens detain, assault or kill
me,
they use only the forces at their disposal. When a state official detains
and
assaults me for public purposes (to stop crime, to ensure good government),
he
does so using the authority and instruments with which the public entrusted
him.
Torture, as it is defined from the Romans to the United Nations, always
involves
this use or abuse of public trust, something that is absent when a private
citizen assaults me.
Whoever authorized the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib also knew the importance of
public trust. They used techniques that left few long term visible marks.
Few
people die of stealth tortures, there are few wounds to show, and pain - in
the
absence of blood - seems ephemeral. Someone was trying to have it both
ways:
keep public trust of Iraqis and Americans and at the same time engage in
coercive interrogations.
But this was a profoundly damaging mistake. Unlike raditional war, winning
the
war on terror is not about winning more land or wealth. It is about our way
of
life, the fundamental identity of liberal democratic society. Those who
oppose
this kind of society believe that fundamentally such societies are scam
games,
and they disguise violent coercion with promises of freedom. Tyranny, as
the
Greeks used to say, always wears a mask.
Now everyone has plenty of reason to be suspicious. Every time a government
abuses public trust in a war on terror, it undermines the respect and
loyalty of
those it hopes to win. What kind of victory is it to have won the battle,
but
lost our way of life? If we cannot respect the rule of law, if we cannot
fight
with one hand tied behind our backs and win, who exactly are we?
Darius Rejali is a nationally recognized expert on torture and
interrogation,
the author of Torture and Democracy (forthcoming Princeton) and a 2003
Carnegie
Scholar. He is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Reed College.
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
this issue, of Prof Darius Rezali, a scholar influenced by Foucault, and
author of Torture and Modernity: Self, Society and State in Modern Iran.
(_http://www.reed.edu/~rejali/cv.html_ (http://www.reed.edu/~rejali/cv.html)
) . See his comments below.
regards
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: Darius Rejali [mailto:Darius.Rejali@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: May 7, 2004 12:54 AM
To: Darius Rejali
Subject: Past Midnight Email
I apologize for the mass email. But nevertheless... I have been thinking of
all
of you. All I have been doing this week is answer questions from newsweek,
time, phil inquirer, balt. sun, the oregonian, kxl radio AM and the local
NBC
affiliat, and the Lehrer New hour? How do people live like this? ANyways, I
am
exhausted and wanted to take this midnight moment to remember all of you.
I'm posting two editorials that have been my output this week. I wrote the
first friday am almost as soon as I saw the photo of the hooded man on a
box. I
realized I was one of a few people who knew exactly what that was. And as it
turned out I was right, Hersch's article came out the next day confirming it
was
sleep deprivation and posture torture. This editorial has not found a home
yet,
but it has made it around the world on the net and back an the nation got
it
from two different sources. I think it's because at that time the media
couldn't utter the "T" word and kept saying "abuse."
The other editorial came out today. I wrote it monday. A little more in the
"fit" of the way they want to talk about this, but still making the same
point.
Look for me on the Lehrer show tuesday maybe. I got bumped once already form
Friday since boiling the sec def in oil on the Hill is the news for
tomorrow. So
I'm not counting chickens...
I am so saddened. After years of having missed my capacity for outrage,
every
now and again I think i almost have it again.
You should know I think of all of you alot as I do this. I find it all
really
scary, and your advice and reassurances have survived the years. No
response
necessary, given the deluge of emails, I'm unlikely to be able to reply.
Nevertheless, thank you,
Darius
Forced to Stand: An Expert Torture
Forced to stand on a box with wires attached to your fingers, toes and penis
all
night log. Just something that Specialist Sabrina Harman dreamed up in Abu
Ghraib prison? Think again.
This torture is well known to intelligence agencies worldwide. The CIA
documented the effects of forced standing forty years ago. And the
technique is
valued because it leaves few marks, and so nothing to document.
Forced standing was a prescribed field punishment in West European armies in
the
early 20th century. The British Army called it Field Punishment No 1,
though
the soldiers referred to it as "the crucifixion." The French Legionaires
called
it "the Silo."
By the 1920s, forced standing was a routine police torture in America. In
1931,
the National Commission on Lawless Enforcement of the Law found numerous
American police departments using forced standing to coerce confessions.
In the 1930s, Stalin's NKVD also famously used forced standing to coerce
seemingly voluntary confessions for show trials. The Gestapo used forced
standing as a routine punishment in many concentrationcamps. It even
created
small narrow "standing cells," Stehzelle, where prisoners had to stand all
night.
In 1956, the CIA commissioned two experts, Wolf and Hinkle, who described
the
effects of forced standing. The ankles and feet swell to twice their size
within
24 hours. Moving becomes agony. Large blisters develop. The heart rate
increases, and some faint. The kidneys eventually shut down.
In the mid-20th century, torturers learned how to use the swelling and
blistering to cause more pain. The South Africa and Brazilian police made
prisoners stand on cans or bricks, the edges causing excruciating pain to
the
sensitive feet. In 1999, the South African Truth Commission determined that
forced standing was the third most common torture during Apartheid after
beating
and electricity.
Hooding was a common feature of Brazilian and South African torture. In the
1970s, the Brazilians added the electrical supplement. When the hooded man
on
the can was electrified, the cans stuck to his feet een when he keeled
over.
Ironically, the Brazilians called the whole technique - hooded man on a can
electrified - "the Vietnam." The innovative technique combined tortures
used by
the North Vietnamese (forced standing) with tortures used commonly by
American
and South Vietnamese interrogators (electrical torture from field phones).
And now the ghost of "the Vietnam" appears in Iraq.
The American soldiers performed the torture, but someone taught them the
parameters. This kind of torture is not common knowledge, and if it were
not
for the photographs, no one would know that it had been practiced.
Today American interrogators are using "stress and duress" techniques in
prisons in Afghanistan and Diego Garcia. Officials refer to these
techniques as
"torture lite." Abu Ghraib gave us the first chance to see what these
techniques
really are: stealth tortures that leave no marks.
Torture like this doesn't just happen "over there." Torture like this casts
a
shadow back here for years aferwards. Soldiers trained in stealth torture
take these techniques back into civilian life as policemen and private
security.
It takes years to uncover the subsequent damage. The American style in
electric
torture in Vietnam appeared in Arkansas prisons in the 1960s and Chicago
squad
rooms in the 1970s and 1980s.
Likewise the excruciating water tortures American soldiers used for
interrogation during the Spanish American War appeared in American policing
in
the next two decades. For those who suffered from these tortures, it was
small
comfort that President Theodore Roosevelt felt it was a "mild torture," or
that
it was hard to see that anyone "was seriously damaged," or that, on Memorial
Day
1902, the President regretted the "few acts of cruelty" American troops had
performed.
When will we ever learn?
Darius Rejali is a nationally recognized expert on torture and
interrogation,
the author of Torture and Democracy (forthcoming Princeton) and a 2003
Carnegie
Scholar. He is an Associat Professor of Political Science at Reed College.
Not as Bad as Terrorism?
Whatever happened at Abu Ghuraib, surely it is not as bad as the killing and
mutilation of the four contractors in Falluja or the mass murder on 9/11?
On the contrary, no act of terrorism could have done as much damage to our
intelligence gathering capabilities as the torture at Abu Ghuraib. Acts of
terrorism killed people, but they did not undermine the trust on which good
intelligence depends.
Successful police and intelligence work depends on public cooperation. In
our
societies, police uncover crimes most of the time because people tell them
and
supply the witnesses and the information.
Since the 1970s, a large body of research has shown that unless the public
specifically identifies suspects to the police, the chances that a crime
will be
solved falls to about 10%. Only a small percentage of crimes are discovered
or
solved with techniques like fingerprinting, DNA sampling and offender
profiling.
Polie in long term dictatorships like the Chinese and Soviets also know the
importance of public co-operation for solving crimes. Where they can't get
public cooperation for some kinds of crimes (crimes against state property),
they create an alternative human intelligence system, informants.
Torture is good for intimidation and false confessions to put someone away.
But
can torture produce more reliable information than public co-operation or
technological monitoring? Even these states know you would be better off
hiring
a psychic.
The bottom line is the always the same: Good intelligence requires humans
willing to trust government enough to work with it. Torture is always the
sign
that the government either does not enjoy the trust of the people it governs
or
that it cannot recruit informers into a system of surveillance. In both
cases,
torture for information is a sign of institutional decay and desperation -
as
Saddam Hussein's Iraq clearly demonstrated.
Torture accelerates this process, estroying the bonds of loyalty, respect
and
trust that keeps information flowing. When citizens detain, assault or kill
me,
they use only the forces at their disposal. When a state official detains
and
assaults me for public purposes (to stop crime, to ensure good government),
he
does so using the authority and instruments with which the public entrusted
him.
Torture, as it is defined from the Romans to the United Nations, always
involves
this use or abuse of public trust, something that is absent when a private
citizen assaults me.
Whoever authorized the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib also knew the importance of
public trust. They used techniques that left few long term visible marks.
Few
people die of stealth tortures, there are few wounds to show, and pain - in
the
absence of blood - seems ephemeral. Someone was trying to have it both
ways:
keep public trust of Iraqis and Americans and at the same time engage in
coercive interrogations.
But this was a profoundly damaging mistake. Unlike raditional war, winning
the
war on terror is not about winning more land or wealth. It is about our way
of
life, the fundamental identity of liberal democratic society. Those who
oppose
this kind of society believe that fundamentally such societies are scam
games,
and they disguise violent coercion with promises of freedom. Tyranny, as
the
Greeks used to say, always wears a mask.
Now everyone has plenty of reason to be suspicious. Every time a government
abuses public trust in a war on terror, it undermines the respect and
loyalty of
those it hopes to win. What kind of victory is it to have won the battle,
but
lost our way of life? If we cannot respect the rule of law, if we cannot
fight
with one hand tied behind our backs and win, who exactly are we?
Darius Rejali is a nationally recognized expert on torture and
interrogation,
the author of Torture and Democracy (forthcoming Princeton) and a 2003
Carnegie
Scholar. He is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Reed College.
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---