CIVIL LIBERTIES  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 21

How the U.S. Army's Field Manual Codified Torture -- and Still Does

Buried in Appendix M of the Army Field Manual, the Guantanamo virus is spreading, and eradicating it will require all of us to spread the word.
January 7, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

In the fear-up approach, the HUMINT [human intelligence] collector identifies a pre-existing fear or creates a fear within the source. He then links the elimination or reduction of the fear to cooperation on the part of the source. … The HUMINT collector should also be extremely careful that he does not create so much fear that the source becomes unresponsive. (pp. 8-10)

In a manner similar to the introduction of the harmful technique of sleep deprivation, the new policy of creating a new fear within a detainee is introduced with a simple grammatical clause. A few words inserted here and there, and the viral program is complete. (Interestingly, the old 1992 AFM says that "increased fear-up" is a "proven effective" technique, but elsewhere describes fear-up harsh as "usually a dead-end," interrogation-wise.)

The Fight Against the "New" Army Field Manual

With the start of a new administration and the swearing in of a new Congress, changes to President Bush's program of torture and abusive detention and interrogation are in the offing. The controversy over the possible nomination of CIA official John Brennan to the directorship of the Central Intelligence Agency, which led to a wide protest, including a letter critical of the choice addressed to President-elect Barack Obama and signed by 200 psychologists and mental health professionals, led to the withdrawal of Brennan from consideration.

As a new administration and Congress consider how to clean up the mess left them by the Bush administration, when it comes to the torture issue, many liberals in the political class are looking to a global adoption of the Army Field Manual as a kind of anodyne for this problem. An example of how far the virus has spread is the petition by the well-regarded Campaign to Ban Torture, signed by a plethora of "respected leaders," including Obama's nominee for White House National Security Adviser, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones. Espousing a "golden rule" over interrogation practice, the CBT declaration states:

We will have one national standard for all U.S. personnel and agencies for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners. Currently, the best expression of that standard is the U.S. Army Field Manual, which will be used until any other interrogation technique has been approved based on the Golden Rule principle.

The Guantanamo virus is spreading. Its agent is Appendix M of the Army Field Manual. It will be very difficult to eradicate. It will require the effort of every person who believes in human rights and is opposed to torture to spread the word. A few crucial human rights and legal organizations have already spoken out against Appendix M, but we have yet to hear from groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights First or the Center for the Victims of Torture. Congressmembers must be called. Letters to the editor must be written. Bloggers must give their unique independent commentary.

The AFM as constituted must not be made the "one national standard" until the virus is eradicated. Appendix M must be rescinded in its totality, and portions of the document, such as the section on Fear Up, rewritten. Otherwise, Bush's and Rumsfeld's attempt to sneak coercive methods of interrogation into the main document of human intelligence gathering used by the military will succeed.

This effort must be combined, as well, with efforts to strip the CIA of its use of "enhanced interrogation methods," which amount to barbaric torture. An independent commission must be established to investigate and publicize the long history of the use of torture and abusive interrogation research and practice by the United States, to ensure that this kind of crime is firmly eradicated and will not happen again. An independent prosecutor should be given full authority to pursue appropriate investigation and indictments.

The time that approaches is one of great opportunity and great danger. Hopefully, U.S. society will rise to the challenges that face it.


Jeffrey Kaye is a psychologist active in the anti-torture movement. He works clinically with torture victims at Survivors International in San Francisco. His blog is Invictus; as "Valtin," he also regularly blogs at Daily Kos, Docudharma, American Torture, Progressive Historians and elsewhere.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email


Comments are closed-

My first thought upon reading this was
Posted by: kittybrat on Jan 7, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isn't it obvious torture is wrong? However, I realize in order to engage in battle, soldiers are taught to hate and dehumanize. There goes the obvious out the window.
So it is necessary to adhere to the Geneva Convention, and harshly punish (not torture) those who do not follow those guidelines. These people are people. Treat them as you would a human being. Do not allow the perceived crimes, actual or suspected, to allow this policy to change. We already know people will say anything to make the torture stop. The information therefore is unreliable, and what have you done besides given more reason for a people to hate us?
What would be obvious to healthy minds is needing to be explained because of the sick mental state of armed forces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Spreading the word about a new foundation for soldiers
Posted by: jcore77 on Jan 7, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any type of human torture is inhumane and should not be practiced. Sometimes I do believe an eye for an eye is truly the best answer for drastic crimes.


Just spreading the news about a brand new foundation for American wounded soldiers and their families.
If you are a military soldier that is need of some extra assistance , then come and check out "The David H Brooks Foundation for American Wounded Soldiers"
david h brooks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

This is not new!
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 7, 2009 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The techniques used in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were laid out a long long time ago. For example, the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual from 1963.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What difference does it make
Posted by: cactus on Jan 7, 2009 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if it's new or old? Torture is wrong, it's counterproductive and the U.S. should not, under any circumstances use it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Geneva Convention my eye!
Posted by: Tequila Kid on Jan 7, 2009 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only certain restricted classes of combatants enjoy the rights set forth in the Geneva Convention, namely those who comply with a few basic rules of civilised warfare. If you claim a threat exists of breaches of the Geneva Convention, you must first prove that the victims of the proposed procedures are indeed combatants covered by the Convention. Terrorism constitutes a breach of the laws of war. Hence if the procedures are applied to persons accused of terrorism and the like, the government can automatically raise the defense that they are not covered. In other words, torturing terror detainees may not be to your taste (or mine) and may be illegal, but it is not a breach of the Geneva Convention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Geneva Convention my eye! Posted by: jeffkaye
» "civilised warfare", my eye! Posted by: leighsure
» RE: "civilised warfare", my eye! Posted by: Deathbunny
» Legal fiction of the Bush regime Posted by: greenknight

Comments are closed-

Yes, Obama plans to continue using torture on US held POWs
Posted by: logansafi on Jan 7, 2009 9:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason that Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts have not denounced the Bush-Cheney mandated use of torture on US held POWs is simply because they plan to continue using it, but hope to avoid bad publicity by better sugar coating it for the American public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Israel's gifts to America
Posted by: weathered on Jan 8, 2009 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
an inexhaustable supply of toxic karma.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I agree totally
Posted by: jeffkaye on Jan 8, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did not go more into this aspect of the AFM Appendix M than already mentioned in the article, as I didn't want to draw attention away from the issue of the techniques of torture. But perhaps I should have added this point, i.e., eliminating the false category of illegal combatant, to the other suggestions at the end of the article.

Thanks for making this excellent point in this particular discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thank you.
Posted by: Urgelt on Jan 8, 2009 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was not aware of the changes that had been made to the Army field manual.

I doubt I'd have ever heard it from mainstream media, either.

It seems that the relentless stupidity of this Administration is without bounds.

Torture simply does not produce reliable intelligence. Other methods are proven to work better, without damaging our international standing and credibility or wrecking our claim to the moral high ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why Torture?
Posted by: Windwhistler on Jan 9, 2009 4:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that its pretty well accepted that information obtained under the situation of torture is of very low value. So my guess is that some other strategy is involved with the use of torture. One possibility is that it demoralizes the "enemy" making him more interested in escaping than fighting. Another possible part of torture strategy is that it will make "Our Side" soldiers more aggressive and cruel operating in an atmosphere where the government supports torture. It appears to me that the attempts to deny and obfuscate the practice of torture are for the folks at home and not for the combatants. Although some percentage of the Folks at Home are probably "troop-like" in their support of torture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

My first thought upon reading this was
Posted by: kittybrat on Jan 7, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isn't it obvious torture is wrong? However, I realize in order to engage in battle, soldiers are taught to hate and dehumanize. There goes the obvious out the window.
So it is necessary to adhere to the Geneva Convention, and harshly punish (not torture) those who do not follow those guidelines. These people are people. Treat them as you would a human being. Do not allow the perceived crimes, actual or suspected, to allow this policy to change. We already know people will say anything to make the torture stop. The information therefore is unreliable, and what have you done besides given more reason for a people to hate us?
What would be obvious to healthy minds is needing to be explained because of the sick mental state of armed forces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Spreading the word about a new foundation for soldiers
Posted by: jcore77 on Jan 7, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any type of human torture is inhumane and should not be practiced. Sometimes I do believe an eye for an eye is truly the best answer for drastic crimes.


Just spreading the news about a brand new foundation for American wounded soldiers and their families.
If you are a military soldier that is need of some extra assistance , then come and check out "The David H Brooks Foundation for American Wounded Soldiers"
david h brooks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

This is not new!
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 7, 2009 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The techniques used in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib were laid out a long long time ago. For example, the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual from 1963.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What difference does it make
Posted by: cactus on Jan 7, 2009 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if it's new or old? Torture is wrong, it's counterproductive and the U.S. should not, under any circumstances use it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Geneva Convention my eye!
Posted by: Tequila Kid on Jan 7, 2009 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only certain restricted classes of combatants enjoy the rights set forth in the Geneva Convention, namely those who comply with a few basic rules of civilised warfare. If you claim a threat exists of breaches of the Geneva Convention, you must first prove that the victims of the proposed procedures are indeed combatants covered by the Convention. Terrorism constitutes a breach of the laws of war. Hence if the procedures are applied to persons accused of terrorism and the like, the government can automatically raise the defense that they are not covered. In other words, torturing terror detainees may not be to your taste (or mine) and may be illegal, but it is not a breach of the Geneva Convention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Geneva Convention my eye! Posted by: jeffkaye
» "civilised warfare", my eye! Posted by: leighsure
» RE: "civilised warfare", my eye! Posted by: Deathbunny
» Legal fiction of the Bush regime Posted by: greenknight

Comments are closed-

Yes, Obama plans to continue using torture on US held POWs
Posted by: logansafi on Jan 7, 2009 9:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason that Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts have not denounced the Bush-Cheney mandated use of torture on US held POWs is simply because they plan to continue using it, but hope to avoid bad publicity by better sugar coating it for the American public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Israel's gifts to America
Posted by: weathered on Jan 8, 2009 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
an inexhaustable supply of toxic karma.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I agree totally
Posted by: jeffkaye on Jan 8, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did not go more into this aspect of the AFM Appendix M than already mentioned in the article, as I didn't want to draw attention away from the issue of the techniques of torture. But perhaps I should have added this point, i.e., eliminating the false category of illegal combatant, to the other suggestions at the end of the article.

Thanks for making this excellent point in this particular discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thank you.
Posted by: Urgelt on Jan 8, 2009 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was not aware of the changes that had been made to the Army field manual.

I doubt I'd have ever heard it from mainstream media, either.

It seems that the relentless stupidity of this Administration is without bounds.

Torture simply does not produce reliable intelligence. Other methods are proven to work better, without damaging our international standing and credibility or wrecking our claim to the moral high ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why Torture?
Posted by: Windwhistler on Jan 9, 2009 4:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that its pretty well accepted that information obtained under the situation of torture is of very low value. So my guess is that some other strategy is involved with the use of torture. One possibility is that it demoralizes the "enemy" making him more interested in escaping than fighting. Another possible part of torture strategy is that it will make "Our Side" soldiers more aggressive and cruel operating in an atmosphere where the government supports torture. It appears to me that the attempts to deny and obfuscate the practice of torture are for the folks at home and not for the combatants. Although some percentage of the Folks at Home are probably "troop-like" in their support of torture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS