HELIOLITH

The Slate today mentions (without linking to) an activist group of physicians, “Physicians for Human Rights” who were co-recipients of the Nobel Peace prize in 1997 for their work to ban landmines. In a report released today PHR reveals that “…extensive evidence that psychological torture was systematic and central to the interrogation process of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo.” This isn’t new, but it must be continued to be taken very seriously by anyone concerned with human rights. The United States continues to have a horrible record and betrays the very ideals it supposedly stands for with the misconduct of its military.

The 135-page report, Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces, by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), is the first comprehensive rev iew of the use of psychological torture by US forces. The report also examines the devastating health consequences of psychological coercion and explains how a regime of psychological torture was put into place in the US “war on terror.”

Techniques of psychological torture used have included sensory deprivation, isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, the use of military working dogs to instill fear, cultural and sexual humiliation, mock executions, and the threat of violence or death toward detainees or their loved ones. Threats were extended to family members, particularly the wives and daughters of detainees.

The New York Times also reports today on a yet to be released FBI investigation into abuses at Guantanamo. They mention the PHR report saying that it largely pulls together existant evidence into one work, but does draw on new resources from one confidential source inside Guantanamo.

I can imagine that in some people’s minds, psychological torture might be seen as more acceptable than physical torture, yet I cannot honestly fathom how either could be seen as options by a conscious person that wasn’t motivated by base hatred or the need for vengence. I don’t think anyone should even enter into the debate about the “viability of information received” since the practices deviate so far from human decency. The end does not ever justify the means, when the means are are violent. For me, the point is not to reach new levels of sensationalized outrage against some horrible acts, but to clearly and unequivocally send the message as a citizen and a taxpayer that this is completely unacceptable and no better than the “terrorism” the current administration is supposedly so commited to combatting.

Amnesty International, who continues to call for an independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib, puts it simply,

Everyone has the right to live free of the threat of torture and ill-treatment. International law unequivocally and absolutely prohibits torture in all circumstances. Yet despite universal condemnation, torturers continue to inflict physical agony and mental anguish on countless victims - and to get away with it.

The work of Physicians for Human Rights appears in some ways similar to other organizations of doctors (whose work I’ve always esteemed) that seek to truly extend the meaning of the hypocratic oath, such as Médecins Sans Frontièrs, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. I wish that membership in the medical community required a true commitment to eliminating all forms of human suffering.