Report Says Doctors Helped Refine Harsh Methods
ANGLO AMERICA, 14 Jun 2010
A prominent physicians group is charging that medical personnel were used to test and refine the effectiveness of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques for terror detainees in U.S. custody under the guise of safeguarding their health.
Physicians for Human Rights outlined the allegations stemming from a Bush-era interrogation program and called on the White House to investigate. Its report was based on a re-examination and new interpretation of records that had been previously released.
U.S. government officials denounced the report, saying the government did not conduct human research on detainees. The officials said that such charges and documents have already been made public and were examined by multiple government investigations.
The author of the report, Nathaniel Raymond, said the declassified documents had never been examined with an eye on laws including the Nuremberg Code, established to ban Nazi Germany medical experimentation.
“We’re not writing the indictment here,” Raymond said before the report’s release at midnight Sunday. “We’re saying there needs to be a search warrant. If the White House does not act on this, it’s turning its back on something that could be perceived as a war crime.”
According to the report, “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.”
For example, the report said, doctors recommended adding salt to the water used for waterboarding, so the patient wouldn’t experience hyponatremia, “a condition of low sodium levels in the blood caused by free water intoxication.”
The report interpreted that doctor-recommended practice of using saline solution as “Waterboarding 2.0.”
It also said information was gathered on the pain inflicted when various techniques were used in combination. Raymond said the purpose was to see if the pain caused violated Bush administration definitions of torture, rather than as a safeguard of the detainees’ health.
Medical personnel, the report said, also monitored sleep deprivation, with sleepless stints from 48 hours to 180 hours – again to make sure it did not cause prolonged physical and mental suffering, as per those Bush administration definitions, rather than to watch out for harm to the detainee.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano flatly rejected the claims. “The CIA did not, as part of its past detention program, conduct human subject research on any detainee or group of detainees,” Gimigliano said.
The CIA has confirmed waterboarding three war on terror detainees. All three are currently held at Guantánamo.
The report also raised questions about the Obama administration’s new high-value detainee investigation group, known as the HIG. Part of its role is to research new methods of interrogation. The physicians group demanded clarification, asking whether this meant learning by doing.
Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for the national intelligence director, said this part of the HIG would look at “scientific research that would allow for a refinement of current best practices” and was “in no way was suggesting research on the detainees themselves.”
Physicians for Human Rights, a Cambridge, Mass.-based nonprofit organization, says its mission is, in part, to investigate human rights abuses.
Associated Press writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article: