Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Forced Drugging of Guantánamo Prisoners: A Crisis for Health Professionals

By Stephen Soldz, AlterNet. Posted April 23, 2008.


With growing evidence of involuntary drugging of prisoners at Guantánamo, health professionals must take an unequivocal stance on torture.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A major article in Tuesday's Washington Post collects the accounts of U.S. detainees who, in large numbers, report that they were the recipients of unknown psychotropic drugs -- a topic recently discussed by Jeff Stein in Congressional Quarterly. The Post has gone further in collecting evidence, making the case that involuntary psychotropic drug use on detainees, including as an interrogation aid, has been a common practice. The Post ran the story on the front page -- a strong statement that catapults the issue of detainee drugging to a top slot in the long list of Bush administration abuses.

The drugging was extremely traumatic for many detainees:

"The injections left a searing impression among some former detainees, said Emi MacLean, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of current and former detainees …
'Many speak about forced medication at Guantánamo without knowledge about what medication they were being forced to take,' MacLean said. 'For some released [military] detainees, the forced medication they experienced was the most traumatic part' of their captivity."
As the Post describes, the drugs were often used as part of the interrogation process:
"(Adel al-Nusairi) is among a handful of former detainees who directly allege the use of drugs in interrogations at the military prison in Guantánamo. Others described being forcibly given sedatives that knocked them out or made them groggy before being transferred, or being forced to take pills or receive shots for unclear reasons and suffering unusual symptoms afterward. At least one detainee has alleged in a written statement through his attorney that he was drugged after being 'renditioned' or transferred by U.S. officials to a prison in Morocco.
Nusairi, in prison interviews in 2005 with Anant Raut, his attorney, described a six-month period in which he says his captors subjected him to drugs and temperature extremes to extract information about al-Qaeda connections they believed he had.
"They thought he was hiding something," said Raut, who represented Nusairi and other Saudi detainees in 2005 and 2006 while working for the Washington office of the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges. "He was injected in the arm with something that made him tired -- that made his brain cloudy. When he would try to read the Koran, his brain would not focus. He had unusual lethargy and would drool on himself."
Such treatment, like many of the other "interrogation" techniques supposedly necessary to obtain accurate intelligence, often led to false confessions instead:
"It was during one such episode, in an interrogation room Nusairi remembers as ice-cold, that he became so desperate for sleep that he signed a confession professing to involvement in al-Qaeda, according to his attorney's notes. The interrogator watched him sign his name, and 'then he smiled and turned off the air conditioner. And I went to sleep,' Nusairi said, according to the notes."
After the confession-- which Nusairi later said was a lie -- the Saudi remained at Guantánamo Bay for another three years before being turned over to his home country, which released him. "He signed the statement, and they declared him an enemy combatant," Raut said, "yet they released him anyway with no explanation." The Saudi Embassy declined to comment."
Other detainees describe being administered drugs as part of what appeared to be punishment:
"Other detainees, in interviews or in statements provided by their attorneys, described pills and injections being forcibly administered for reasons that were not always clear to them. Mourad Benchellali, a French national who was held for three years at Guantánamo Bay, said that prison workers sometimes described the medications as antibiotics or vitamins, yet they frequently left him in a mental fog.
'These medicines gave us headaches, nausea, drowsiness,' Benchellali, who is now living in France, said in an e-mail. 'But the effects were different for different detainees. Some fainted or threw up. Some had reactions such as pimples.' He also described periodic injections, often administered by force, that left him feeling nauseated and light-headed, and noted, 'We were always tired and always felt groggy.'
A different type of injection seemed to be reserved for detainees who were particularly uncooperative, Benchellali said, describing episodes that four other former detainees also cited in interviews or legal documents. 'The injection would make them crazy,' he said. 'They would have a crisis or dementia -- yelling, no longer sleeping, soiling themselves. Some of us suspected they were given LSD.'"
While both the military and the Defense Department deny the reports, as the Post carefully notes, these reports are especially plausible as it is known that the CIA conducted a decades-long research program to develop truth serums and pharmacological approaches to manipulating human behavior. And, as discussed below, the CIA in 2003 was actively discussing the use of drugs in interrogations. Further, as both CQ and the Post point out, the recently released Yoo torture memo went out of its way to provide legal cover for the use of drugs in interrogations.

In recent years it has become clear that psychologists have been pivotal actors in the Bush administration interrogation abuses, as they designed, conducted and standardized "enhanced interrogations amounting to torture. As Vanity Fair reporter Katherine Eban explained:
"I discovered that psychologists weren't merely complicit in America's aggressive new interrogation regime. Psychologists, working in secrecy, had actually designed the tactics and trained interrogators in them while on contract to the CIA."
At this point it is unknown if psychologists are involved as among those "health" professionals who involuntarily administered drugs. But we do know that, thanks partly to military support, a number of psychologists can now legally prescribe drugs. And some of those prescribing psychologists were with the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams [BSCTs] at Guantánamo. Moreover, in 2003 the American Psychological Association co-sponsored with the CIA an invitation-only "Science of Deception" workshop that discussed, among other topics, "What pharmacological agents are known to affect apparent truth-telling behavior?" CIA consultant torturers James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were among those invited to attend, as were several of their superiors. Now, given recent revelations, the APA should speak openly and forthrightly about this conference, how it was organized, who attended and how they were selected, and what was discussed there. It is long past time for these actions of the psychological association to be openly discussed among the APA membership and the broader public.

This story constitutes further evidence that health professionals, likely including physicians as well as the psychologists previously known about, were central agents in the Bush administration's abusive detention and interrogation program. This is a clear violation of medical ethics, going well beyond these professions' guiding "do no harm" standard. It is incumbent upon Congress to investigate these serious allegations. Additionally, associations of health professionals need to make clear, unequivocal statements that participating in these activities is unethical and will not be tolerated.

This would be a first step. Health professions need a truth and reconciliation process going forward to explore the actions of health professional, psychologists included, in aiding the varied abuses of detainees that are coming to light. This process must explore the actions, not just of individual professionals, but of professional associations in looking the other way at, or perhaps even actively aiding these abuses.

We need a committee of health professionals, human rights advocates, and retired intelligence professionals concerned about detention abuses to hear testimony and create a detailed account of what is available in the public record on health professional involvement in these abuses. Including intelligence professionals would help penetrate the fog of denial that surrounds classified intelligence activity. Such a committee would also examine and make recommendations for policy and structural changes in professional organization to reduce the likelihood that these organizations will turn their backs on future abuses.

The health professions failed to come to terms with the extent of their involvement in the CIA's earlier mind-manipulation research, making them less alert to their potential roles in the contemporary "war on terror." Now that these professions are directly implicated in publicly-exposed detention abuses, they cannot afford again to avoid clarifying their ethical responsibilities. To fail to face squarely these abuses will change the image of the health professions for decades to come. Rather than be known as those that improve human welfare and "do no harm," these professions will be known as those that do the harm demanded by the powers that be. Should that eventuality come to pass, these professions will suffer greatly. But so will all of us who rely upon health professionals to care for our welfare.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: torture, detainees, guantánamo, interrogations

Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of

Psychoanalysis. He maintains the Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice web site and the Psyche, Science, and Society blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, one of the organizations leading the struggle to change American Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive interrogations.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
implausible denials
Posted by: whealeydj on Apr 23, 2008 8:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Bush administration would not stop at waterboarding,extremes of cold light ,loud music and and sleep deprivation. I therfpre consider their denials implauisble about drugging suspects. yes more oversight of psychologists and doctors and if their peers cant or wont, it is time for regulations for interrogstions of suspects,detainees and imprisoned.

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

It would be interesting
Posted by: jeffkaye on Apr 23, 2008 9:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to juxtapose this issue with that decided by the Supreme Court in Washington v Harper, 1990. From an article on the case:

[begin quote]The Supreme Court believed that "an inmate's interests are adequately protected, and perhaps better served, by allowing the decision to medicate to be made by medical professionals rather than a judge" [5]. Under the prison's policy, a psychiatrist and psychologist were both involved in the decision, and Harper was provided with an independent lay advisor who had an understanding of medicine to ensure fairness in the hearing. These were sufficient procedural safeguards, according to the Court....
As it stands today the law permits the violation of rights of the incarcerated so long as the prison policy is reasonably related to legitimate penologic interests. This standard is not difficult to satisfy, especially when the prison argues that the policy is necessary for the safety of others in the prison environment. [end quote]

Perhaps you have covered this in a previous essay. If not, you, I, or someone else could take it up. We don't want to confuse the issues, but it seems to me there is an important connection. Dr. Reisner, candidate for APA President, has made the treatment in supermax prisons part of his platform.

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

forced drugging in usa commonplace already
Posted by: Will Brady on Apr 23, 2008 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The horror is rightfully expressed when talking about GITMO detainees and other political prisoners, but the practice og forced drugging is nothing new.

Approximately 40 states already allow forced drugging in individuals in the psychiatric "mental health" system. This is permitted with state support and known as "outpatient commitment laws"

Proponents of forced drugging include author and renegade psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey [working from the Treatment Advocacy Center] and American Enterprise Institute's Sally Satel. Google both of these individuals for more detail on these state sanctioned proponents of using psychiatrists as torturers.

But there is a difference when the drugs are used on psychiatric patients; namely that the average citizen makes no such exclamations of outrage that forced drugging occurs routinely, every day and out in the open with people who have been diagnosed with any of a variety of DSM IV disorders. The difference is that few, if any question forced drugging when it is done, routinely, to people labeled as "mentally ill."

Forced drugging enthusiasts also include psychopharm giants like Eli Lilly Corporation [they manufacture the flawed drug Zyprexa] which has been in a multi year battle to censor information that use of Zyprexa is harmful for many.

The Treatment Advocacy Center receives funding from drug companies and the Stanley Medical Research Institute who conduct an aggressive campaign of drug experimentation around the world.

(As an aside E Fuller Torrey also espouses the belief that exposure to cats may cause schizophrenia but his real zeal is in mandating forced drugging.)

So while I find it troubling that GITMO detainees have been forcibly drugged against their will, and without informed consent, it also comes as no surprise.

Without society and the nation's [in deed the world's citizenry] calling these practices into question in all spheres where forced drugging is practiced, I remain skeptical that the GITMO / John Yee / CIA / Bush regime torturers will fell any pressure to stop their nefarious actions.

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

What about the Hippocratic Oath?
Posted by: Quannah on Apr 24, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First do no harm?

Or has that been superceded by government edicts?

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

it's rather simple for doctors!
Posted by: Bearzerker on Apr 27, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...DO NO HARM!...

and administring drugs to extract information or torture...
well their licenses can and should be pulled for any offenders!

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

poisoned fruits of babylon
Posted by: chrysalis124812 on Apr 30, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
humans are not made for domination, force is unhelpful. Some of us know better. Healing and light to all those harmed in this way.

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

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement