31. Submission from Peter Kinderman,
Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Liverpool
PSYCHOLOGICAL
TORTURE
The recent UN report on the abuse of detainees
in Guantanamo Bay contained a reference to the extensive use of
psychological methods amounting to torture and also referred to
the role of psychologists and psychiatrists in interrogation techniques.
Coercive psychological techniques such as those reportedly used
to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and in
Guantanamo Bay have been widely reported in a variety of settings,
as has the possible involvement of psychological or psychiatric
expertise. It is profoundly worrying that such techniques are
employed, frightening to observe that they may be becoming more
widely used, and important to think of how such abuses may be
prevented.
UK and US personnel trained in psychological
techniques (although not necessarily chartered psychologists)
are almost certainly involved in the R2I (resistance to interrogation)
programmes taught to British and US military specialists. It is
suggested that one key role for psychologists in the R2I programme
is to check for the possibility of psychological damage. Psychologists,
of course, study all aspects of human behaviour, including coercion
and torture. Equally, members of the UK armed forces are likely
to be exposed to danger and they should be prepared for that.
But there are aspects of the present situation that are deeply
troubling.
The CIA's "Human Resource Exploitation
Training Manual—1983" was originally obtained under
the Freedom of Information Act by the Baltimore Sun in 1997. It
lists a wide range of psychological techniques now widely observed
in the "war on terror" and well-known from other conflicts
internationally. The document is freely available in electronic
form from academic libraries in the US, and appears to have benefited
from academic psychological input. The New York Times,
on June 24, 2005 ("Interrogators Cite Doctors' Aid at Guantanamo
Prison Camp") cited a number of sources indicating that psychologists
or psychiatrists have assisted in what I would call the psychological
torture of prisoners. For instance, medical, psychiatric or psychological
staff in units known as Behavioral Science Consultation Teams—BSCT
or "biscuit" teams—advise interrogators on how
to "break" detainees. In addition to the basic techniques
of psychological coercion listed in the CIA manual, psychological
quirks of the detainees (for example a particular fear of the
dark) have apparently been identified and then used strategically
by interrogators. It is of note that the US military have apparently
defended the right of medical personnel to act in this manner.
In addition to the perversion of medical and
psychological care that this implies, the apparent increase in
the use of psychological techniques of coercion has other worrying
features. It seems that the US Government has tried to excuse
the CIA and the US military from laws prohibiting the use of torture,
and has tried to define torture in a very limited manner that
refers explicitly to pain and tissue damage. The US Department
of Justice's Policy Forum has apparently advised the White House
that torture "may be justified". Clearly, such a strategy
would have the consequence of encouraging or permitting the use
of psychological torture techniques. It is possible that such
approaches are also used because, if one has no marks of injury,
evidence is lacking. Perhaps, also, such techniques are seen as
fitted to a war partially delineated by beliefs.
The psychological impact of psychological torture,
degradation and abuse is well known. Indeed, the CIA's own 1983
Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual warns that: "Extreme
deprivation of sensory stimuli induces unbearable stress and anxiety
and is a form of torture . . . There is a profound moral objection
to applying duress beyond the point of irreversible psychological
damage". The forms of psychological abuse reported as occurring
in the "war on terror" can be devastating on the mental
health of victims. Amnesty International has documented these
consequences extensively, and academic mental health workers have
commented on the severity of the possible consequences. In the
UK, in a different-context, it is possible to achieve a conviction
for grievous bodily harm as a result of purely psychological abuse.
It is highly likely—as the CIA warns—that hooding,
sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation and intense fear will
harm the victim.
One example given in the recent UN report involves
a female interrogator sexually taunting an observant Muslim subject,
including removing her clothes, then putting her hand down her
knickers and removing what appeared to be menstrual blood, which
she then smeared on the subject's face (it was, in fact, red marker-pen
ink). For a Clinical Psychologist, this behaviour is psychological
abuse, and is either designed to, or in any case will, harm the
individually psychologically.
International law is clear. As you and your
Committee will clearly know, the Geneva Convention of 1949 bans
"physical or mental torture, or any other form of coercion
[. . .] threat[s], insult[s], or [. . .] any unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind". The United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights outlaws "inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment". Psychological abuse such as that carried out
at Guantanamo Bay will not only cause harm, it is illegal.
We are all aware of the failure of many Governments
to act appropriately to remove the scourge of torture. The prevalence
of psychological techniques perhaps warrants particular attention.
In addition to protecting people against physical harm, people's
mental well-being must be protected. People must be protected
against indefinite detention—itself testified to lead to
serious mental health problems. People need protection from techniques
such as routine hooding and sensory deprivation techniques. And
people, of course, need protection from the techniques reported
by the UN as being used in a variety of international facilities.
This requires action by international bodies
and Governments as well as professional bodies and non-governmental
organisations. Psychologists, including myself; are members of
non-governmental organisations active in the area of human rights.
Members of our professional bodies (again including me) have attempted
to move this debate forward using those avenues. But such avenues
often feel blocked. Recent Parliamentary Written Questions submitted
by Neil Gerrard MP (Hansard 12 Jul 2004: Column 994W; 179170)
asking "whether chartered psychologists have assisted in
the past and are assisting the UK armed forces in the use or development
of psychological coercive techniques" were replied to by
the Minister of State with the statement that "`Psychological
coercive techniques' is not a term recognised by the United Kingdom
armed forces and is therefore not defined in our doctrine. No
use is made of such techniques". Such an answer rather reminds
me of Ms Harman's comment that she did not recognise the term
"extraordinary rendition".
In the light of all these concerns, I believe
there are a number of issues that may be appropriate for a Parliamentary
Committee to pursue:
(i) Whether any UK armed forces or security
service personnel have been involved in the use of such techniques
internationally,
(ii) Whether there is any knowledge on the
part of UK armed forces or security service personnel in the use
of such techniques by our international allies,
(iii) Whether any UK courts or tribunals
have received evidence that may have been obtained following the
use of such techniques.
I believe, further, that it would be appropriate
for the UK Government to be required, through the legitimate pressure
of your Committee, to confirm that such techniques, as they would
commonly be understood, constitute a violation of the UN Convention
Against Torture. Finally, of course, I believe it would be appropriate
for the UK Government to be required, again through the legitimate
pressure of your Committee, to press our international allies
to behave likewise.
I know that your Committee has an enormous remit,
but I hope you will understand that the Joint Committee has a
unique role and a very high reputation. I wonder, therefore, whether
this issue is one that would interest your Committee.
23 March 2006
|
