US doctors participate in tortures under instructions of DoD and CIA

[F430murci]

Don't be a terrorists and you won't get waterboarded. Move on and stop the whining about hypocrisy or the world not being fair. The world ain't fair. Why not spend energy focusing on the animals cutting fingers, arms and legs off perhaps thousands of live victims or burning them alive in 55 gallon drums if for no other reason to instill fear and because they are savages.

Edited November 7, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

I was always of the belief that the doctors were there only in case of need. I think this article is full of shit and biased to the extreme.

As far as I know, it would be best to have a doctor do force feeding if a prisoner was trying to starve himself. Who else would know how to do it safely and probably intravenously? So force feeding to save someone's life is now torture?

I thought only 3 people were waterboarded and they were high value targets for information that was needed immediately. I think people who are waterboarded last only about 15 seconds before they give up. They are strapped to a board and their feet and of course lungs are elevated above their head. Then water is poured into their nose and it fills their sinuses and noses, and gives them the sensation of drowning when in fact no water can run down their throat into the lungs. It can run a little ways into the throat and keep them from breathing.

So it is a real sensation of drowning with no chance of drowning.

I don't think anyone died of it, but people have died being tasered, and that's used regularly in jails and on the street to control people. Is that torture?

I think the article is a big ado about nothing.

[lomatopo]

We've (the U.S.A.) have used the "water cure" repeatedly: Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War, War on Terror, even some Police departments used it.

It's not torture if we do it as our reasons are beyond question.

THE WATER CURE

Many Americans were puzzled by the news, in 1902, that United States soldiers were torturing Filipinos with water. The United States, throughout its emergence as a world power, had spoken the language of liberation, rescue, and freedom. This was the language that, when coupled with expanding military and commercial ambitions, had helped launch two very different wars. The first had been in 1898, against Spain, whose remaining empire was crumbling in the face of popular revolts in two of its colonies, Cuba and the Philippines. The brief campaign was pitched to the American public in terms of freedom and national honor (the U.S.S. Maine had blown up mysteriously in Havana Harbor), rather than of sugar and naval bases, and resulted in a formally independent Cuba.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_kramer

Life Magazine cover from 1902...

[Berkshire]

Leaving morality aside, isn't it safer to have doctors and nurses involved in torture, as opposed to lower level grunts who don't have a clue about medical safety? Just saying....

Getting tortured by doctors? Sheer luxury!

Well it'd sure beat having your fingernails plucked out one at a time by Al Qaeda operatives in some cave. So unsanitary!

[spidermike007]

More evidence that the US is slowly declining into a lost empire, and a pale shadow of it's former self. Even though the US has always engaged in spying, empire building, supporting of heinous dictators, etc, at least it seemed to stand for something. No longer. With nimrods like Blundering Barry at the helm, following up the rather extreme performance of Tiny George II, the country is slipping into the quicksand of history. It feels like now, the US is about where the Western Roman Empire was at about 400AD, right before the great German conquerer Alaric, defeated the Roman army at Adrianople in 410AD. This is course lead to the sacking of Rome shortly thereafter. It feels as if the US may be on the verge of a similar fate. It has lost it's moral compass. The NSA is completely out of control, as are so many other American institutions. The economy has spun out, and the solution is to borrow $85,000,000,000 per month to keep things going. Congress and the Senate have never been less competent, or more impotent. Blundering Barry is really slipping, and seems to not have much or a sense of what he is doing, nor why he is doing it. The place has been reduced to the point that the democratic and the republican parties are essentially two different sides of the same coin. Very little idealogical difference, and even far less difference in practice, as the Grand Canyon stands between what this nincompoop leader says, and what he does. He may say it, but it is quite obvious he does not mean it. Did he ever mean it? As his defenders like to say, he means well, but his power is limited. Well, the power of the president depends on the moral authority of the president, and he seems to be working hard to erode what little moral authority he once had. His credibility is almost completely gone, except where his most blind, and ardent supporters (his apologists) are concerned. Where do they go from here? Is there any potential for improvement or reform?

[ToddWeston]

I was always of the belief that the doctors were there only in case of need. I think this article is full of shit and biased to the extreme.

As far as I know, it would be best to have a doctor do force feeding if a prisoner was trying to starve himself. Who else would know how to do it safely and probably intravenously? So force feeding to save someone's life is now torture?

I thought only 3 people were waterboarded and they were high value targets for information that was needed immediately. I think people who are waterboarded last only about 15 seconds before they give up. They are strapped to a board and their feet and of course lungs are elevated above their head. Then water is poured into their nose and it fills their sinuses and noses, and gives them the sensation of drowning when in fact no water can run down their throat into the lungs. It can run a little ways into the throat and keep them from breathing.

So it is a real sensation of drowning with no chance of drowning.

I don't think anyone died of it, but people have died being tasered, and that's used regularly in jails and on the street to control people. Is that torture?

I think the article is a big ado about nothing.

I tend to agree, it has a shock value and little more.

As someone who has taken multiple oaths (the Hippocratic Oath version therof) I have mixed feelings, I'm opposed to torture and would do no harm, HOWEVER in my case, if Queen and Country called I would do all to protect my fellow citizens, if that infringed on my oath I would certainly have a dilema & would seek counsel but my loyalty would be paramount.

I do consider myself liberal, but in these times of terror and the acts carried out by a few it's up to the miltary to stop these nutters, if I'm judged harshly then so be it. I don't like guns and I doubt I could kill a man but we'd all probably pull the trigger if Osama had walked into the room.

[nidieunimaitre]

Leaving morality aside, isn't it safer to have doctors and nurses involved in torture, as opposed to lower level grunts who don't have a clue about medical safety? Just saying....

Getting tortured by doctors? Sheer luxury!

Well it'd sure beat having your fingernails plucked out one at a time by Al Qaeda operatives in some cave. So unsanitary!

You don't get it, do you?

"They" are not civilized - so much is clear.

"We" are civilized, and that brings certain responsabilities with it.

What is the point of defending ourselves against uncivilized people, if we do it in an uncivilized way?

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[NeverSure]

Some of you don't get it. The fraudulent OP article is about doctors participating in torture, and it goes on to even call force feeding torture when that would be a doctor's duty to save a life.

The article is about doctors. It isn't about what the US did more than 100 years ago. It isn't about the merits of waterboarding. It isn't about England's era of colonialism either. It isn't about Obama or the US economy or the federal reserve or the parties in control or US elections.

It's a false accusation that US doctors participated in what the author believes was torture and it's full of lies. That's the topic, therefore I'm not responding to the rest of your "comments."

[lomatopo]

Kinda, sorta hard to gloss this one over, but carry on...

New York, NY — An independent panel of military, ethics, medical, public health, and legal experts today charged that U.S. military and intelligence agencies directed doctors and psychologists working in U.S. military detention centers to violate standard ethical principles and medical standards to avoid infliction of harm. The Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centers (see attached) concludes that since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) and CIA improperly demanded that U.S. military and intelligence agency health professionals collaborate in intelligence gathering and security practices in a way that inflicted severe harm on detainees in U.S. custody.

According to the Task Force, the DoD specifically:

• Excused violations of ethical standards by inappropriately characterizing health professionals engaged in interrogation as “safety officers,” masking one of their key functions;

• Implemented rules that permitted medical and psychological information obtained by health professionals to be used in interrogations;

• Required physicians and nurses to forgo their independent medical judgment and counseling roles, as well as to force-feed competent detainees engaged in hunger strikes even though this is forbidden by the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association;

• Improperly designated licensed health professionals to use their professional skills to interrogate detainees as military combatants, a status incompatible with licensing; and

• Failed to uphold recommendations by the Army Surgeon General to adopt international standards for medical reporting of abuse against detainees.

http://imapny.org/medicine_as_a_profession/interrogationtorture-and-dual-loyalty

Official report, ~ 200+ pages: Ethics Abandoned

http://imapny.org/File%20Library/Documents/IMAP-EthicsTextFinal2.pdf

Task Force Members:

Scott A. Allen, MD, FACP

University of California, Riverside

George J. Annas, JD, MPH

Boston University

Karen Brudney, MD

Columbia University

Richard N. Gottfried, JD

New York State Assembly

Vincent Iacopino, MD, PhD

Physicians for Human Rights

Allen S. Keller, MD

New York University

Robert S. Lawrence, MD

Johns Hopkins University

Steven H. Miles, MD

University of Minnesota

Aryeh Neier

Open Society Foundations

Deborah Alejandra Popowski, JD

Harvard University

Steven Reisner, PhD

Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

Hernán Reyes, MD, FMH Ob/Gyn

International Committee of the Red Cross

David J. Rothman, PhD

Columbia University

Leonard S. Rubenstein, JD

Johns Hopkins University

Steven S. Sharfstein, MD, MPA

Sheppard Pratt Health Systems

Albert J. Shimkus, Jr.

U.S. Naval War College

Eric Stover

University of California, Berkeley

Gerald E. Thomson, MD

Columbia University

Frederick E. Turton, MD, MBA, MACP

Emory University

Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Stephen N. Xenakis, MD

United States Army

Edited November 7, 2013 by lomatopo

[chuckd]

Not hard at all to gloss over when you consider the source of the funding for this so called "Taskforce".

Google George Soros and all his associated organizations.

[lomatopo]

http://imapny.org/

The Institute on Medicine as a Profession was founded in 2003 with a grant of $7.5 million from George Soros and the Open Society Institute (OSI). Neither Open Society Institute, nor any business associated with George Soros is represented on the IMAP board of directors.

http://imapny.org/about_imap/imap%E2%80%93board%E2%80%93%E2%80%93officers

http://imapny.org/about_imap/mission--history

After having read the report feel free to comment on it, disparage it or the contributors and any other that fail to meet your personal litmus test.

[simple1]

Some of you don't get it. The fraudulent OP article is about doctors participating in torture, and it goes on to even call force feeding torture when that would be a doctor's duty to save a life.

The article is about doctors. It isn't about what the US did more than 100 years ago. It isn't about the merits of waterboarding. It isn't about England's era of colonialism either. It isn't about Obama or the US economy or the federal reserve or the parties in control or US elections.

It's a false accusation that US doctors participated in what the author believes was torture and it's full of lies. That's the topic, therefore I'm not responding to the rest of your "comments."

You may remember that during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the UK government stopped using force feeding of terrorist detainees and permitted them to die from starvation. Given your posting history I would have thought you would fully support a similar policy in US detention centers. A good article discussing the pros and cons of forced feeding in US detention centres is below.

http://verdict.justia.com/2013/05/08/legal-limits-on-the-forced-feeding-of-hunger-striking-guantanamo-bay-detainees

Yes it's about doctors that one would reasonably assume are on the staff or contracted to the US military or security agencies and subject to the chain of command.

The report, Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the War on Terror, is based on two years of review of records in the public domain by a 19-member task force. The DoD has taken some actions to address the concerns raised. Accordingly I would suggest the DoD would not be actioning issues raised that have no foundation in truth, so please support your notion that the report is full of lies.

Edited November 7, 2013 by simple1

[lomatopo]

so please support your notion that the report is full of lies

Jeez, that's no fun. It's so much easier to just dismiss something I don't like, agree with or have a desire to learn about.

[Credo]

So, did a doctor report this? What kind of force was used on the doctor to get him to abandon his ethics? A prisoner does not necessarily have the right to determine his own level of care.

Unless there are clear examples it's pretty hard to understand. Psychologists are often asked by Courts to evaluate a patient. What they find is reported directly to the Court. The Dr./patient privilege exists when there is a mutual relationship.

If a prisoner is standing on a wall and threatening to jump, would it be wrong to stop him? Would that violate the ethical principles because he wished to die or harm himself?

[simple1]

So, did a doctor report this? What kind of force was used on the doctor to get him to abandon his ethics? A prisoner does not necessarily have the right to determine his own level of care.

Unless there are clear examples it's pretty hard to understand. Psychologists are often asked by Courts to evaluate a patient. What they find is reported directly to the Court. The Dr./patient privilege exists when there is a mutual relationship.

If a prisoner is standing on a wall and threatening to jump, would it be wrong to stop him? Would that violate the ethical principles because he wished to die or harm himself?

All well & good, but the detainees do not have access to a Civil Court.

[Credo]

From an ethical point of view, the person having custody of a prisoner has the same power as the court. Do you think a prisoner in any facility cannot be evaluated at the request of the prison officials and that information shared with the prison officials?

The confidentiality issue comes up when the relationship is between the professional and the patient. In most of these cases the relationship is between the professional and the institution. That would change if one of the patients said I need/want counseling, then the relationship is between those two and is fully protected by the Dr./Patient confidentiality and ethics rules.

There are a lot of gray areas here.

[chuckd]

I'm just asking a few questions here...

Has anybody ever died as a result of waterboarding?

Has anybody ever died as a result of sleep deprivation?

Since the only reason for force feeding anybody would be if they had refused to eat, has anybody ever died from force feeding?

This report was done by a group calling themselves the "Taskforce on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centres". This taskforce is a part of a larger organization named "The Institute on Medicine as a Profession".

http://www.imapny.org/about_imap/mission--history

Digging into the source of funding for this organization, one finds at least one rather interesting piece of information:

"The Institute on Medicine as a Profession was founded in 2003 with a grant of $7.5 million from George Soros and the Open Society Institute (OSI). Neither Open Society Institute, nor any business associated with George Soros is represented on the IMAP board of directors."

From this link: http://www.imapny.org/about_imap/funding_information

For your information, George Soros spent millions of his own money to try and defeat Bush in both his Presidential elections. Any report on the Bush administration from a Soros sponsored organization is met, by me and many others, with a healthy does of scepticism.

Up to you, as the old saying goes.

Lomatopo:

I made the quoted post over 24 hours ago on this thread. You must have missed it.

[NeverSure]

These biased reports, funded by the likes of American hater George Soros, still DO NOT show that doctors actually tortured prisoners.

And these are prisoners of war not people captured doing crimes on US soil, so they don't have the same rights as they would on US soil. That's why there is a Gitmo; so they don't set foot on US soil. Even Obama who was critical of Gitmo before he was president, and promised to close it, found he couldn't and he hasn't.

As for the repeated references on here to "international law" who gives a shit? The US hasn't given over its sovereignty to a one world body which can tell it what to do. The US has refused to sign most treaties about those matters. The tiny, wimpy countries which have signed away their sovereignty are now finding themselves overrun by terrorist immigrants and every other leach on the planet. My bet is that the UK will, to save itself, have to withdraw from the EU and its rules and get its sovereignty back. It can play nice with these radical immigrants just so long before it's sink or swim time.

So much for bleeding hearts who want to treat terrorist prisoners of war as if they were civilian angels. Good luck with that experiment in Europe.

[Scott]

I think the point is not necessarily about the prisoner's rights, but about the standard of ethics of the doctors and psychologists.

It's pretty vague about what healthcare professionals may or may not have done and their level of participation.

[simple1]

These biased reports, funded by the likes of American hater George Soros, still DO NOT show that doctors actually tortured prisoners.

And these are prisoners of war not people captured doing crimes on US soil, so they don't have the same rights as they would on US soil. That's why there is a Gitmo; so they don't set foot on US soil. Even Obama who was critical of Gitmo before he was president, and promised to close it, found he couldn't and he hasn't.

As for the repeated references on here to "international law" who gives a shit? The US hasn't given over its sovereignty to a one world body which can tell it what to do. The US has refused to sign most treaties about those matters. The tiny, wimpy countries which have signed away their sovereignty are now finding themselves overrun by terrorist immigrants and every other leach on the planet. My bet is that the UK will, to save itself, have to withdraw from the EU and its rules and get its sovereignty back. It can play nice with these radical immigrants just so long before it's sink or swim time.

So much for bleeding hearts who want to treat terrorist prisoners of war as if they were civilian angels. Good luck with that experiment in Europe.

The report of the Taskforce on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centres concludes that after 9/11, health professionals working with the military and intelligence services "designed and participated in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and torture of detainees". Where is your contary evidence that they did not participate in these practices?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11

US Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism related charges since 9/11. Military commissions have convicted only seven.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Courts.pdf

I would have thought that you would support the position of the US Attorney General that terrorists should be tried and convicted in a civilian criminal court; if convicted and meeting the criteria, they would now be on death row, rather than just sitting in Gitmo.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/04/holder-civilian-courts-terrorism-suspects/3434687/

[NeverSure]

These biased reports, funded by the likes of American hater George Soros, still DO NOT show that doctors actually tortured prisoners.

And these are prisoners of war not people captured doing crimes on US soil, so they don't have the same rights as they would on US soil. That's why there is a Gitmo; so they don't set foot on US soil. Even Obama who was critical of Gitmo before he was president, and promised to close it, found he couldn't and he hasn't.

As for the repeated references on here to "international law" who gives a shit? The US hasn't given over its sovereignty to a one world body which can tell it what to do. The US has refused to sign most treaties about those matters. The tiny, wimpy countries which have signed away their sovereignty are now finding themselves overrun by terrorist immigrants and every other leach on the planet. My bet is that the UK will, to save itself, have to withdraw from the EU and its rules and get its sovereignty back. It can play nice with these radical immigrants just so long before it's sink or swim time.

So much for bleeding hearts who want to treat terrorist prisoners of war as if they were civilian angels. Good luck with that experiment in Europe.

The report of the Taskforce on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centres concludes that after 9/11, health professionals working with the military and intelligence services "designed and participated in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and torture of detainees". Where is your contary evidence that they did not participate in these practices?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11

US Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism related charges since 9/11. Military commissions have convicted only seven.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Courts.pdf

I would have thought that you would support the position of the US Attorney General that terrorists should be tried and convicted in a civilian criminal court; if convicted and meeting the criteria, they would now be on death row, rather than just sitting in Gitmo.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/04/holder-civilian-courts-terrorism-suspects/3434687/

Wow, are you confused. 500 convicted in federal civilian courts means they were tried on US soil and given all of the protections and rights that a US citizen would have on US soil. No problem there.

7 convicted by military commissions would be the prisoners of war. They don't have a right to US civilian courts.

I don't trust your anti-US biased Guardian. Give me a comic book please.

NO I don't support the US Attorney General. That was probably Eric Holder, the mobster who ran Fast and Furious AKA Operation Gunrunner and his FBI and IRS targets groups he doesn't like. The truth is that a terrorist trial on US soil of a detainee from Gitmo could well set off Islamic riots and THAT's why even Obama had to back down from doing it. dam_n, they were going to bring some well known terrorist from Gitmo and try him in the NY federal courthouse that's within spitting distance of the World Trade Center event. Eventually they realized they just couldn't.

So it was the attorney general who got shot down on his idea and I had nothing to do with it. The Obama administration shot it down.

Edited November 8, 2013 by NeverSure

[simple1]

These biased reports, funded by the likes of American hater George Soros, still DO NOT show that doctors actually tortured prisoners.

And these are prisoners of war not people captured doing crimes on US soil, so they don't have the same rights as they would on US soil. That's why there is a Gitmo; so they don't set foot on US soil. Even Obama who was critical of Gitmo before he was president, and promised to close it, found he couldn't and he hasn't.

As for the repeated references on here to "international law" who gives a shit? The US hasn't given over its sovereignty to a one world body which can tell it what to do. The US has refused to sign most treaties about those matters. The tiny, wimpy countries which have signed away their sovereignty are now finding themselves overrun by terrorist immigrants and every other leach on the planet. My bet is that the UK will, to save itself, have to withdraw from the EU and its rules and get its sovereignty back. It can play nice with these radical immigrants just so long before it's sink or swim time.

So much for bleeding hearts who want to treat terrorist prisoners of war as if they were civilian angels. Good luck with that experiment in Europe.

The report of the Taskforce on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centres concludes that after 9/11, health professionals working with the military and intelligence services "designed and participated in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and torture of detainees". Where is your contary evidence that they did not participate in these practices?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/04/cia-doctors-torture-suspected-terrorists-9-11

US Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism related charges since 9/11. Military commissions have convicted only seven.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Courts.pdf

I would have thought that you would support the position of the US Attorney General that terrorists should be tried and convicted in a civilian criminal court; if convicted and meeting the criteria, they would now be on death row, rather than just sitting in Gitmo.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/04/holder-civilian-courts-terrorism-suspects/3434687/

Wow, are you confused. 500 convicted in federal civilian courts means they were tried on US soil and given all of the protections and rights that a US citizen would have on US soil. No problem there.

7 convicted by military commissions would be the prisoners of war. They don't have a right to US civilian courts.

I don't trust your anti-US biased Guardian. Give me a comic book please.

NO I don't support the US Attorney General. That was probably Eric Holder, the mobster who ran Fast and Furious AKA Operation Gunrunner and his FBI and IRS targets groups he doesn't like. The truth is that a terrorist trial on US soil of a detainee from Gitmo could well set off Islamic riots and THAT's why even Obama had to back down from doing it. dam_n, they were going to bring some well known terrorist from Gitmo and try him in the NY federal courthouse that's within spitting distance of the World Trade Center event. Eventually they realized they just couldn't.

So it was the attorney general who got shot down on his idea and I had nothing to do with it. The Obama administration shot it down.

The seven convicted were not POWs as the US has excluded terror suspects captured overseas from POW status. Details on the seven convicted & US Miltary juristiction at

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/law-and-security/military-commissions/

EDIT: You deny any media report that does not support your POV You keep dismissing the Guardian article that reported on a review published in the public domain by a US based organisation. The report included content from 19 contributors, not just the medical policy institution; have you actually read the report and researched the background of the contributors?

Edited November 8, 2013 by simple1

[Scott]

Please keep in mind that this thread is about Dr.'s participating in torture.....

If you are going to use examples or discussion, it should relate to the topic of the thread.