Today's Article
Evidence indicates
that the Bush
administration
conducted human
experimentation on
prisoners in US
custody, say doctors.
that the Bush
administration
conducted human
experimentation on
prisoners in US
custody, say doctors.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Human Experiments Part Of 'Enhanced Interrogations', Say Doctors
By Cliff Montgomery - July 13th, 2010
Last month, a white paper released by the medical group Physicians for Human Rights discussed a
harrowing matter:
"Investigation and analysis of US government documents by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) provides
evidence indicating that the Bush administration [specifically its CIA medical personnel], in the period after
Sept. 11, conducted human research and experimentation on prisoners in US custody."
C.I.A officials have denied the charge. But PHR's findings should be taken seriously.
"PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health professionals, with their specialized skills, ethical
commitments, and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate the health consequences of human
rights violations and work to stop them," according to the organization's mission statement.
"Since 2005, PHR has documented the systematic use of psychological and physical torture by US personnel
against detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram airbase, and elsewhere in its
groundbreaking reports," adds the statement.
The American Spark provides a major portion of the executive summary from this eye-opening PHR report:
"Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration initiated new human intelligence collection
programs. To that end, it detained and questioned an unknown number of people suspected of having links to
terrorist organizations.
"As part of these programs, the Bush administration redefined acts, such as waterboarding, forced nudity,
sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, stress positions and prolonged isolation, that had previously been
recognized as illegal, to be 'safe, legal and effective' 'enhanced' interrogation techniques (EITs).
"Bush administration lawyers at the Department of Justice’s (DoJ’s) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
accomplished this redefinition by establishing legal thresholds for torture, which required medical monitoring of
every application of 'enhanced' interrogation.
"Medical personnel were ostensibly responsible for ensuring that the legal threshold for 'severe physical and
mental pain' was not crossed by interrogators, but their presence and complicity in intentionally harmful
interrogation practices were not only apparently intended to enable the routine practice of torture, but also to
serve as a potential legal defense against criminal liability for torture.
Investigation and analysis of US government documents by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) provides
evidence indicating that the Bush administration, in the period after Sept. 11, conducted human research and
experimentation on prisoners in US custody as part of this monitoring role.
"Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the interrogations of detainees, collected
and analyzed the results of those interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied
to subsequent interrogations.
"Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and experimentation by health professionals on prisoners,
which could violate accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law.
"These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"The knowledge obtained through this process appears to have been motivated by a need to justify and to
shape future interrogation policy and procedure, as well as to justify and to shape the legal environment in
which the interrogation program operated.
"PHR analyzes three instances of apparent illegal and unethical human subject research for this report:
"Yet the Bush administration’s legal framework to protect CIA interrogators from violating US statutory and
treaty obligations prohibiting torture effectively contravened well-established legal and ethical codes, that, had
they been enforced, should have protected prisoners against human experimentation, and should have
prevented the 'enhanced' interrogation program from being initiated in the first place.
"There is no evidence that the Office of Legal Counsel ever assessed the lawfulness of the medical monitoring
of torture, as it did with the use of the 'enhanced' techniques themselves.
"The use of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment in interrogations of detainees in US custody has been
well-documented by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and others. The role of health professionals in
designing, monitoring and participating in torture also has been investigated and publicly documented. This
current report provides evidence that in addition to medical complicity in torture, health professionals
participated in research and experimentation on detainees in US custody.
"The use of human beings as research subjects has a long and disturbing history filled with misguided and
often willfully unethical experimentation. Ethical codes and federal regulations have been established to
protect human subjects from harm and include clear standards for informed consent of participants in
research, an absence of coercion, and a requirement for rigorous scientific procedures.
"The essence of the ethical and legal protections for human subjects is that the subjects, especially vulnerable
populations such as prisoners, must be treated with the dignity befitting human beings and not simply as
experimental guinea pigs."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - July 13th, 2010
Last month, a white paper released by the medical group Physicians for Human Rights discussed a
harrowing matter:
"Investigation and analysis of US government documents by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) provides
evidence indicating that the Bush administration [specifically its CIA medical personnel], in the period after
Sept. 11, conducted human research and experimentation on prisoners in US custody."
C.I.A officials have denied the charge. But PHR's findings should be taken seriously.
"PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health professionals, with their specialized skills, ethical
commitments, and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate the health consequences of human
rights violations and work to stop them," according to the organization's mission statement.
"Since 2005, PHR has documented the systematic use of psychological and physical torture by US personnel
against detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram airbase, and elsewhere in its
groundbreaking reports," adds the statement.
The American Spark provides a major portion of the executive summary from this eye-opening PHR report:
"Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush administration initiated new human intelligence collection
programs. To that end, it detained and questioned an unknown number of people suspected of having links to
terrorist organizations.
"As part of these programs, the Bush administration redefined acts, such as waterboarding, forced nudity,
sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, stress positions and prolonged isolation, that had previously been
recognized as illegal, to be 'safe, legal and effective' 'enhanced' interrogation techniques (EITs).
"Bush administration lawyers at the Department of Justice’s (DoJ’s) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
accomplished this redefinition by establishing legal thresholds for torture, which required medical monitoring of
every application of 'enhanced' interrogation.
"Medical personnel were ostensibly responsible for ensuring that the legal threshold for 'severe physical and
mental pain' was not crossed by interrogators, but their presence and complicity in intentionally harmful
interrogation practices were not only apparently intended to enable the routine practice of torture, but also to
serve as a potential legal defense against criminal liability for torture.
Investigation and analysis of US government documents by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) provides
evidence indicating that the Bush administration, in the period after Sept. 11, conducted human research and
experimentation on prisoners in US custody as part of this monitoring role.
"Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the interrogations of detainees, collected
and analyzed the results of those interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied
to subsequent interrogations.
"Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and experimentation by health professionals on prisoners,
which could violate accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law.
"These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"The knowledge obtained through this process appears to have been motivated by a need to justify and to
shape future interrogation policy and procedure, as well as to justify and to shape the legal environment in
which the interrogation program operated.
"PHR analyzes three instances of apparent illegal and unethical human subject research for this report:
- 1. Medical personnel were required to monitor all waterboarding practices and collect detailed medical
information that was used to design, develop, and deploy subsequent waterboarding procedures;
2. Information on the effects of simultaneous versus sequential application of the interrogation
techniques on detainees was collected and used to establish the policy for using tactics in combination.
These data were gathered through an assessment of the presumed 'susceptibility' of the subjects to
severe pain;
3. Information collected by health professionals on the effects of sleep deprivation on detainees was
used to establish the 'enhanced' interrogation program’s (EIP) sleep deprivation policy." [...]
"Yet the Bush administration’s legal framework to protect CIA interrogators from violating US statutory and
treaty obligations prohibiting torture effectively contravened well-established legal and ethical codes, that, had
they been enforced, should have protected prisoners against human experimentation, and should have
prevented the 'enhanced' interrogation program from being initiated in the first place.
"There is no evidence that the Office of Legal Counsel ever assessed the lawfulness of the medical monitoring
of torture, as it did with the use of the 'enhanced' techniques themselves.
"The use of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment in interrogations of detainees in US custody has been
well-documented by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and others. The role of health professionals in
designing, monitoring and participating in torture also has been investigated and publicly documented. This
current report provides evidence that in addition to medical complicity in torture, health professionals
participated in research and experimentation on detainees in US custody.
"The use of human beings as research subjects has a long and disturbing history filled with misguided and
often willfully unethical experimentation. Ethical codes and federal regulations have been established to
protect human subjects from harm and include clear standards for informed consent of participants in
research, an absence of coercion, and a requirement for rigorous scientific procedures.
"The essence of the ethical and legal protections for human subjects is that the subjects, especially vulnerable
populations such as prisoners, must be treated with the dignity befitting human beings and not simply as
experimental guinea pigs."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!