[R-G] Project Censored The top 10 stories the U.S. news media missed in the past year

[Anthony Fenton]

  OCTOBER 1, 2008
Project Censored
The top 10 stories the U.S. news media missed in the past year
http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A317777
BY AMANDA WITHERELL


The daily dispatches and nightly newscasts of the mainstream media  
regularly cover terrorism, but rarely how fear of attacks is used to  
manipulate the public and to set policy. That's the common thread of  
many of the unreported stories last year, according to an analysis by  
Project Censored.

Since 1976, Sonoma State University has released an annual survey of  
the top 25 stories the mainstream media failed to report or reported  
poorly. Culled from worldwide alternative news sources, vetted by  
students and faculty and ranked by judges, the stories may not have  
been overtly censored. But their controversial subjects, challenges to  
the status quo or general under-the-radar subject matter kept them  
from the front pages.

Project Censored recounts them, accompanied by media analysis, in a  
book published annually by Seven Stories Press.

"This year, war and civil liberties stood out," Peter Phillips,  
director of the project since 1996, said of the top stories. "They're  
closely related and part of the war on terror that has been the  
dominant theme of Project Censored for seven years, since 9/11."

Whether it's preventing what one piece of legislation calls "homegrown  
terrorism" by federally funding the study of radicalism, using vague  
concerns about security to quietly expand the North American Free  
Trade Agreement, or refusing to count the number of Iraqi civilians  
killed in the war, the threat of terrorism is being used to silence  
people and expand power.

"The war on terror is a sort of mind terror," said Nancy Snow, one of  
the project's 24 judges and an associate professor of public diplomacy  
at the Newhouse School at Syracuse University.

"You can't declare war on terror. It's a tactic that's used by groups  
to gain publicity and it will remain with us. But it's unlikely that  
[the number of terrorist acts] will spike. It spikes in the minds of  
people," said Snow, who has taught classes on war.

She pointed out that terrorist attacks have declined worldwide since  
2003. Some use the absence of fresh attacks as evidence that the so- 
called war on terror is working, but a RAND Corporation study for the  
Defense Department that was released in August said the war on terror  
hasn't effectively undermined al-Qaida. It suggested the phrase be  
replaced with the less-loaded term "counterterrorism."

Both Phillips and Snow agreed that comprehensive, contextual reporting  
is missing from most of the coverage. "That's one of my criticisms of  
the media," Snow said. "They spotlight issues and don't look at the  
entire landscape."

This year, the landscape of Project Censored itself is expanding.  
After talking with educators who bemoan the ongoing decline of news  
quality and have offered to help, Phillips has launched the Truth  
Emergency Project in which Sonoma State partners with 23 other  
universities. All will host classes for students to search out untold  
stories, vet them for accuracy and submit them for consideration to  
Project Censored.

"There's a renaissance of independent media," Phillips said. He thinks  
bloggers and citizen journalists are filling crucial roles left vacant  
by staff cutbacks throughout the mainstream media. And, he said, it's  
time for universities, educators and media experts to step in and  
help. "It's not just reforming the media but supporting them in as  
many ways as they need, like validating stories by fact-checking."

The Truth Emergency Project will also host a news service that  
aggregates the top 12 independent media sources and posts them on one  
page. "So you can get an RSS feed from all the major independent news  
sources we trust," he said.

Discerning newshounds can find headlines from the BBC, Democracy Now!  
and Inter Press Service News Agency in one spot. "The whole criteria,"  
he said, "is no corporate media."

Carl Jensen, who started the project in 1976, said the expansion is a  
new and necessary phase.

"It answers the question I was always challenged with: How do you know  
this is the truth? Having 24 campuses reviewing all the stories and  
raising questions really provides a good answer. These stories will be  
vetted more than Sarah Palin."

Phillips said he hopes to expand to 100 schools within the year, and  
would like the project to bring more attention to the dire need for  
public support for quality news reporting.

"I think it's going to require government subsidies and nonprofit  
organizations doing community media projects," he said. "It's more  
than just reforming at the FCC level. It's building independent media  
from the ground up."

Phillips likened it to the boom in microbrewed beer and the spread of  
independently owned pubs: "If we can have a renaissance in beer  
making, following established purity standards, then we can do it with  
our media, too."

1. HOW MANY IRAQIS HAVE DIED?

Nobody knows exactly how many lives the Iraq war has claimed. But even  
more astounding is that few journalists have mentioned the issue or  
cited the top estimate: 1.2 million.

During August and September 2007, Opinion Research Business, a British  
polling group, surveyed 2,414 adults in 15 of 18 Iraqi provinces and  
found that more than 20 percent had experienced at least one war- 
related death since March 2003. Using common sociological study  
methods, they determined that as many as 1.2 million people had been  
killed since the war began.

The U.S. military, claiming it keeps no count, still employs civilian  
death data as a marker of progress. For example, in a Sept. 10, 2007,  
report to Congress, Gen. David Petraeus said, "Civilian deaths of all  
categories, less natural causes, have also declined considerably, by  
over 45 percent Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence  
in December."

Whose number was he using? Estimates have ranged wildly and are based  
on a variety of sources, including hospital, morgue and media reports,  
as well as in-person surveys.

In October 2006, the British medical journal Lancet published a Johns  
Hopkins University study vetted by four independent sources that  
counted 655,000 dead, based on interviews with 1,849 households. It  
updated a similar study from 2004 that counted 100,000 dead. The  
Associated Press called it "controversial."

The AP began its own count in 2005 and by 2006 said that at least  
37,547 Iraqis have lost their lives due to war-related violence, but  
called it a minimum estimate at best, and didn't include insurgent  
deaths.

Iraq Body Count, a group of U.S. and United Kingdom citizens who  
aggregate numbers from media reports on civilian deaths, puts the  
figure between 87,000 and 95,000. More recently, in January 2008, the  
World Health Organization and the Iraqi government did door-to-door  
surveys of nearly 10,000 households and put the number of dead at  
151,000.

And the 1.2 million figure is out there, too, which is higher than the  
Rwandan genocide death toll and closing in on the 1.7 million who  
perished in Cambodia's killing fields. It raises questions about the  
real number of deaths from U.S. aerial bombings and house raids, and  
challenges the common assumption that this is a war in which Iraqis  
are killing Iraqis.

Justifying the higher number, Michael Schwartz, writing on the blog  
afterdowningstreet.org, pointed to a fact reported by the Brookings  
Institute that U.S. troops have, over the last four years, conducted  
about 100 house raids a day—a number that has increased recently with  
assistance from Iraqi soldiers.

Brutality during these house searches has been documented by returning  
soldiers, Iraqi civilians and independent journalists (See Story No.  
9.) Schwartz suggests the aggressive "element of surprise" tactic  
employed by soldiers is likely resulting in several thousands of  
deaths a day that are going unreported or categorized as insurgents  
being killed.

The spin is having its intended effect: a February 2007 AP poll showed  
Americans gave a median estimate of 9,890 Iraqi deaths as a result of  
the war, a number far below that cited in any credible study.

Sources: "Is the United States killing 10,000 Iraqis every month? Or  
is it more?" Michael Schwartz, afterdowningstreet.org, July 6, 2007;  
"Iraq death toll rivals Rwanda Genocide, Cambodian killing fields,"  
Joshua Holland, Alternet, Sept. 17, 2007; "Iraq conflict has killed a  
million: survey," Luke Baker, Reuters, Jan. 30, 2008; "Iraq: Not our  
country to return to," Maki al-Nazzal and Dahr Jamail, Inter Press  
Service, March 3, 2008

2. NAFTA ON STEROIDS

Coupling the perennial issue of security with Wall Street's measures  
of prosperity, the leaders of the three North American nations have  
convened the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The White House-led  
initiative—launched at a March 23, 2005, meeting of President Bush,  
Mexico's then-president Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul  
Martin—joins beefed-up commerce with coordinated military operations  
to promote what it calls "borderless unity."

Critics call it "NAFTA on steroids." However, unlike NAFTA, the SPP  
has been formed in secret, without public input.

"The SPP is not a law, or a treaty, or even a signed agreement," Laura  
Carlsen wrote in a report for the Center for International Policy.  
"All these would require public debate and participation of Congress,  
both of which the SPP has scrupulously avoided."

Instead, the SPP has its own work group: the North American  
Competitiveness Council. It's a coalition of private companies that  
are, according to the SPP Web site, "adding high-level business input  
[that] will assist governments in enhancing North America's  
competitive position and engage the private sector as partners in  
finding solutions."

They include Chevron, Ford, General Electric, Lockheed Martin  
Corporation, Merck, New York Life, Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart.

"Where are the environmental council, the labor council and the  
citizen's council in this process?" Carlsen asked.

A look at NAFTA's popularity among citizens in all three nations is  
evidence why its expansion would be disguised.

"It's a scheme to create a borderless North American Union under U.S.  
control without barriers to trade and capital flows for corporate  
giants, mainly U.S. ones," wrote Steven Lendman in Global Research.  
"It's also to ensure America gets free and unlimited access to  
Canadian and Mexican resources, mainly oil, and in the case of Canada,  
water as well."

Sources: "Deep Integration," Laura Carlsen, Center for International  
Policy, May 30, 2007; "The Militarization and Annexation of North  
America," Stephen Lendman, Global Research, July 19, 2007; "The North  
American Union," Constance Fogal, Global Research, Aug. 2, 2007

3. INFRAGARD GUARDS ITSELF

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have effectively deputized  
23,000 members of the business community, asking them to tip off the  
feds in exchange for preferential treatment in the event of a crisis.

"The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive  
secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at  
least on one occasion, before elected officials," Matthew Rothschild  
wrote in the March 2008 issue of The Progressive.

InfraGard was created in 1996 in Cleveland as part of an FBI probe  
into cyberthreats. Yet after 9/11, membership jumped from 1,700 to  
more than 23,000 and now includes 350 of the nation's Fortune 500  
companies. Members typically have a stake in one of several crucial  
infrastructure industries, including agriculture, banking, defense,  
energy, food, telecommunications, law enforcement and transportation.  
Eighty-six chapters coordinate with 56 FBI field offices nationwide.

While FBI Director Robert Mueller has said he considers this segment  
of the private sector "the first line of defense," the American Civil  
Liberties Union issued a grave warning about the potential for abuse.  
"There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS  
program, turning private-sector corporations—some of which may be in a  
position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers— 
into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI," it cautioned in an August  
2004 report.

"The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who  
get special treatment," Jay Stanley, public education director of the  
ACLU's technology and liberty program, told Rothschild.

And they are privileged: A DHS spokesperson told Rothschild that  
InfraGuard members receive special trainings and readiness exercises.  
They're also privy to protected information that is usually shielded  
from disclosure under the trade secrets provision of the Freedom of  
Information Act.

The information they have may be of critical importance to the general  
public, but first it goes to the privileged membership—sometimes  
before it's released to elected officials. As Rothschild related in  
his story, on Nov. 1, 2001, the FBI sent an alert to InfraGard members  
about a potential threat to bridges in California. Barry Davis, who  
worked for Morgan Stanley, received the information and relayed it to  
his brother Gray, the governor of California, who released it to the  
public.

Steve Maviglio, Davis' press secretary at the time, told Rothschild,  
"The governor got a lot of grief for releasing the information. In his  
defense, he said, 'I was on the phone with my brother, who is an  
investment banker. And if he knows, why shouldn't the public know?'"

Source: "The FBI deputizes business," Matthew Rothschild, The  
Progressive, Feb. 7, 2008

4. ILEA: TRAINING GROUND FOR ILLEGAL WARS?

The School of the Americas earned an unsavory reputation in Latin  
America after many graduates of the Fort Benning, Ga., facility turned  
into counterinsurgency death squad leaders. So the International Law  
Enforcement Academy recently installed by the United States in El  
Salvador—which looks, acts, and smells like the SOA—is also drawing  
scorn.

The school, which opened in June 2005 before the Salvadoran National  
Assembly had even approved it, has a satellite operation in Peru and  
is funded with $3.6 million from the U.S. Treasury and staffed with  
instructors from the DEA, ICE and the FBI and tasked with training  
1,500 police officers, judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement  
agents a year in counterterrorism techniques. Its stated purpose is to  
make Latin America "safe for foreign investment" by "providing  
regional security and economic stability and combating crime."

ILEAs aren't new, and past schools located in Budapest, Hungary;  
Bangkok, Thailand; Gaborone, Botswana; and Roswell, N.M., haven't been  
terribly controversial. Yet Salvadoran human rights organizers take  
issue with the fact that, in true SOA fashion, the ILEA releases  
neither information about its curriculum nor a list of students and  
graduates. Additionally, the way the school slipped into existence  
without public oversight has raised ire.

As Wes Enzinna noted in a North American Congress on Latin America  
report, when the United States decided it wanted a training ground in  
Latin America, El Salvador was not the first choice of locations. In  
2002, U.S. officials selected Costa Rica as host—a country that  
doesn't even have an army. The local government signed on and the plan  
made headlines, but when citizens learned about it, they revolted and  
demanded the government change the agreement. The United States bailed  
for a more discreet second attempt in El Salvador.

"Members of the U.S. Congress were not briefed about the academy, nor  
was the main opposition party in El Salvador, the Farabundo Marti- 
National Liberation Front," Enzinna wrote. "But once the news media  
reported that the two countries had signed an official agreement in  
September, activists in El Salvador demanded to see the text of the  
document." Though they tried to garner enough opposition, the National  
Assembly narrowly ratified it.

Now, after more than three years in operation, critics point out that  
Salvadoran police, who account for 25 percent of the graduates, have  
become more violent. A May 2007 report by Tutela Legal implicated  
Salvadoran National Police officers in eight death-squad-style  
assassinations in 2006.

El Salvador's ILEA recently received another $2 million in U.S.  
funding through the congressionally approved Merida Initiative—but  
still refuses to adopt a more transparent curriculum and  
administration, despite partnering with a well-known human rights  
leader. Enzinna's FOIA requests for course materials were rejected by  
the government, so no one knows exactly what the school is teaching or  
to whom.

Sources: "Exporting U.S. 'Criminal Justice' to Latin America,"  
Community in Solidarity with the people of El Salvador," Upside Down  
World, June 14, 2007; "Another SOA?" Wes Enzinna, NACLA Report on the  
Americas, March/April 2008; "ILEA funding approved by Salvadoran right  
wing legislators," CISPES, March 15, 2007; "Is George Bush restarting  
Latin America's 'dirty wars?'" Benjamin Dangl, AlterNet, Aug. 31, 2007

5. SEIZING PROTEST

Protesting war could get you into big trouble, according to a critical  
read of two executive orders recently signed by President Bush. The  
first, issued July 17, 2007, and titled, "Blocking property of certain  
persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq," allows the feds  
to seize assets from anyone who "directly or indirectly" poses a risk  
to the U.S. war in Iraq. And, citing the modern technological ease of  
transferring funds and assets, the order states that no prior notice  
is necessary before the raid.

On Aug. 1, Bush signed a similar order directed toward anyone  
undermining the "sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes  
and institutions." In this case, the secretary of Treasury can seize  
the assets of anyone perceived as posing a risk of violence, as well  
as the assets of their spouses and dependents, and bans them all from  
receiving any humanitarian aid.

Critics say the orders bypass the right to due process and the vague  
language makes manipulation and abuse possible. Protesting the war  
could be perceived as undermining or threatening U.S. efforts in Iraq.  
"This is so sweeping, it's staggering," said Bruce Fein, a former  
Reagan administration Justice Department official, who editorialized  
against it in the Washington Times. "It expands beyond terrorism,  
beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or  
intimidate a population."

Sources: "Bush executive order: Criminalizing the antiwar movement,"  
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 2007; "Bush's executive  
order even worse than the one on Iraq," Matthew Rothschild, The  
Progressive, Aug. 2007

6. RADICALS = TERRORISTS

On Oct. 23, 2007, the House overwhelmingly passed, by a vote of 404-6,  
the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act,"  
designed to root out the causes of radicalization in Americans.

With an estimated four-year cost of $22 million, the act establishes a  
10-member National Commission on the Prevention of Violent  
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, as well as a university-based  
Center of Excellence "to examine the social, criminal, political,  
psychological and economic roots of domestic terrorism," according to  
a press release from the bill's author, Rep. Jane Harman, a California  
Democrat.

During debate on the bill, Harman said, "Free speech, espousing even  
very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution—but violent  
behavior is not."

Jessica Lee, writing in the Indypendent, pointed out that in a later  
press release, Harman stated: "The National Commission [will] propose  
to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary  
Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized  
individuals turn violent."

Which could be when they're speaking, writing or organizing in ways  
protected by the First Amendment. This redefines civil disobedience as  
terrorism, say civil rights experts. For example, the definition of  
"violent radicalization" is "the process of adopting or promoting an  
extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically  
based violence to advance political, religious or social change."

"What is an extremist belief system? Who defines this? These are broad  
definitions that encompass so much ... It is criminalizing thought and  
ideology," said Alejandro Queral, executive director of the Northwest  
Constitutional Rights Center.

Though the ACLU recommended some changes that were adopted, it  
continued to criticize the bill. Harman, in a response letter, said  
free speech is still free and stood by the need to curb ideologically  
based violence.

The story didn't make it onto the CNN ticker, but enough independent  
sources reported on it that the equivalent Senate Bill 1959 has since  
stalled. After introducing the bill, Republican Sen. Susan Collins,  
Maine, later joined forces with Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman on a  
report criticizing the Internet as a tool for violent Islamic extremism.

Despite outcry from a number of civil liberties groups, days after the  
report was released, Lieberman demanded YouTube remove a number of  
Islamist propaganda videos. YouTube canned some that broke their rules  
regarding violence and hate speech, but resisted censoring others. The  
ensuing battle caught the attention of the New York Times and on May  
25, they editorialized against Lieberman and Senate Bill 1959.

Sources: "Bringing the war on terrorism home," Jessica Lee,  
Indypendent, Nov. 16, 2007; "Examining the Homegrown Terrorism  
Prevention Act," Lindsay Beyerstein, In These Times, Nov. 2007; "The  
Violent Radicalization Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,"  
Matt Renner, Truthout, Nov. 20, 2007

7. SLAVERY'S RUNNER-UP

About 121,000 people legally enter the United States to work every  
year with H-2 visas, a program legislators are modeling as part of  
future immigration reform. But Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York  
Democrat, called this guest worker program "the closest thing I've  
ever seen to slavery."

The Southern Poverty Law Center likened it to "modern day indentured  
servitude." They interviewed thousands of guest workers and reviewed  
legal cases for a report released in March 2007, in which authors Mary  
Bauer and Sarah Reynolds wrote, "Unlike U.S. citizens, guest workers  
do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor  
market—the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead,  
they are bound to the employers who 'import' them. If guest workers  
complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other  
retaliation."

When visas expire, workers must leave the country, hardly making this  
the path to permanent citizenship that legislators are looking for.  
The H-2 program mimics the controversial old bracero program,  
established through a joint agreement between Mexico and the U.S. in  
1942, which brought 4.5 million workers over the border during its 22  
years in existence.

Many legal protections were written into the program, but in most  
cases they only existed on paper, in a language unreadable to  
employees. In 1964, the program was shuttered amid scores of human  
rights abuses and complaints that it undermined petitions for higher  
wages from U.S. workers. Soon after, United Farm Workers organized,  
which Cesar Chavez said would have been impossible if the bracero  
program still existed.

Years later, it essentially still does. The H-2A program, which  
accounted for 32,000 agricultural workers in 2005, has many of the  
same protections—and many of the same abuses. Even worse is the H-2B  
program, used by 89,000 non-agricultural workers annually. Created by  
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, none of the same  
safeguards are legally required for H-2B workers.

Still, Mexicans are literally lining up to join, the stark details of  
which were reported by Felicia Mello in The Nation. Furthermore,  
thousands of illegal immigrants are employed throughout the country,  
providing cheap, unprotected labor and further undermining the scant  
provisions of the laws. Labor contractors who connect immigrants with  
employers are lining their pockets with cash, while people return home  
with very little.

The Southern Poverty Law Center outlined a list of comprehensive  
changes needed in the program and concluded: "For too long, our  
country has benefited from the labor provided by guest workers but has  
failed to provide a fair system that respects their human rights and  
upholds the most basic values of our democracy. The time has come for  
Congress to overhaul our shamefully abusive guest worker system."

Sources: "Close to Slavery," Mary Bauer and Sarah Reynolds, Southern  
Poverty Law Center, March 2007; "Coming to America," Felicia Mello,  
The Nation, June 25, 2007; "Trafficking racket," Chidanand Rajghatta,  
Times of India, March 10, 2008

8. BUSH CHANGES THE RULES

The Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of  
Justice has been issuing classified legal opinions about surveillance  
for several years. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee,  
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse had access to the DOJ  
opinions regarding presidential power, and he had three of them  
declassified in order to show how the judicial branch has, in a  
bizarre and chilling way, assisted President Bush in circumventing its  
own power.

According to the three memos:

1. "There is no constitutional requirement for a president to issue a  
new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a  
previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the  
President has instead modified or waived it;"

2. "The President, exercising his constitutional authority under  
Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of  
the President's authority under Article II," and

3. "The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal  
determinations."

Or, as Whitehouse rephrased them in a Dec. 7, 2007, Senate speech: "I  
don't have to follow my own rules, and I don't have to tell you when  
I'm breaking them. I get to determine what my own powers are. The  
Department of Justice doesn't tell me what the law is. I tell the  
Department of Justice what the law is." The issue arose within the  
context of the Protect America Act, which expands government  
surveillance powers and gives telecom companies legal immunity for  
helping. Whitehouse called it, "a second-rate piece of legislation  
passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush  
administration." He pointed out that the act does not prohibit spying  
on Americans overseas—with the exception of an executive order that  
permits surveillance only of Americans who the attorney general  
determines to be "agents of a foreign power."

"In other words, the only thing standing between Americans traveling  
overseas and government wiretap is an executive order," Whitehouse  
said in an April 12 speech. "An order this president, under the first  
legal theory I cited, claims he has no legal obligation to obey."

Whitehouse, a former U.S. attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island's  
governor, and Rhode Island attorney general who took Senate office in  
2006, went on to point out that Marbury v. Madison, written by Chief  
Justice John Marshall in 1803, established that it is "emphatically  
the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law  
is."

Sources: "In FISA Speech, Whitehouse sharply criticizes Bush  
Administration's assertion of executive power," Sheldon Whitehouse,  
Dec. 7, 2007; "Down the Rabbit Hole," Marcy Wheeler, The Guardian, UK,  
Dec. 26, 2007

9. SOLDIERS SPEAK OUT

Hearing soldiers recount their war experiences is the closest many  
people come to understanding the real horror, pain and confusion of  
combat. One would think that might make compelling copy or powerful  
footage for a news outlet, but in March, when more than 300 veterans  
from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan convened for four days of public  
testimony on the war, they were largely ignored by the media.

Winter Soldier was designed to give soldiers a forum to air some of  
the atrocities they witnessed. It was first convened by Vietnam Vets  
Against the War in January 1971 when more than 100 veterans and 16  
civilians described their war experiences, including rapes, torture,  
brutalities and killing of non-combatants. The testimony was entered  
into the Congressional Record and filmed and shown at the Cannes Film  
Festival.

Iraq Veterans Against the War hosted the 2008 reprise of the 1971  
hearings. Aaron Glantz, writing in One World, recalled testimony from  
former Marine Cpl. Jason Washburn, who said, "his commanders  
encouraged lawless behavior. 'We were encouraged to bring 'drop  
weapons,' or shovels. In case we accidentally shot a civilian, we  
could drop the weapon on the body and pretend they were an insurgent.'"

An investigation by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian in The Nation that  
included interviews with 50 Iraq war veterans also revealed an  
overwhelming lack of training and resources and a general lawlessness  
with regard to the traditional rules of war. Though most major news  
outlets managed to send staff to cover New York's Fashion Week, few  
made it down to Silver Spring, Md., for the Winter Soldier hearings.  
Fortunately, KPFA and Pacifica Radio broadcast the testimonies live  
and, in an update to the story, said they were "deluged with phone  
calls, e-mails, and blog posts from service members, veterans and  
military families thanking us for breaking a cultural norm of silence  
about the reality of war." Testimonies can still be heard at ivaw.org.

Sources: "Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan eyewitness accounts of  
the occupation," Iraq Veterans Against the War, March 13-16, 2008;  
"War comes home," Aaron Glantz, Aimee Allison, and Esther Manilla,  
Pacifica Radio, March 14-16, 2008; "U.S. Soldiers testify about war  
crimes," Aaron Glantz, One World, March 19, 2008; "The Other War,"  
Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian, The Nation, July 30, 2007

10. APA HELPS CIA TORTURE

Psychologists have been assisting the CIA and the U.S. military with  
interrogation and torture of Guantanamo detainees—which the American  
Psychological Association has said is fine, in spite of objections  
from many in its 148,000 members. A 10-member APA task force convened  
on the divisive issue in July 2005 and found that help from  
psychologists was making the interrogations safe, and deferred to U.S.  
standards on torture over international human-rights definitions.

The group was criticized by APA members for deliberating in secret,  
and later it was revealed that six of the 10 had ties to the armed  
services. Not only that, but as Katherine Eban reported in Vanity  
Fair, "Psychologists, working in secrecy, had actually designed the  
tactics and trained interrogators in them while on contract to the CIA."

In particular, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, neither  
of whom are APA members, honed a classified military training program  
known as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape), which teaches  
soldiers how to tough out torture if captured by enemies. "Mitchell  
and Jessen reverse-engineered the tactics inflicted on SERE trainees  
for use on detainees in the global war on terror," wrote Eban. And, as  
Mark Benjamin noted in a Salon.com article, employing SERE training— 
which is designed to replicate torture tactics that don't abide by  
Geneva Convention standards—refutes past administration assertions  
that current CIA torture techniques are safe and legal. "Soldiers  
undergoing SERE training are subject to forced nudity, stress  
positions, lengthy isolation, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation,  
exhaustion from exercise, and the use of water to create a sensation  
of suffocation," Benjamin wrote.

Eban's story outlined how SERE tactics were spun as "science," despite  
a void of data and many criticisms that building rapport works better  
than blows to the head. Specifically, it's been misreported that CIA  
torture techniques got al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah to talk, when  
it was actually FBI rapport-building. In spite of this, the SERE  
techniques became standards in interrogation manuals that eventually  
made their way to U.S. officers guarding Abu Ghraib.

Ongoing uproar within APA resulted in a petition to make an official  
policy limiting psychologists involvement in interrogations. On Sept.  
17, a majority of 15,000 voting members approved a resolution stating  
psychologists may not work in settings where "persons are held outside  
of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the U.N.  
Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the U.S.  
Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for  
the persons being detained or for an independent third party working  
to protect human rights."

Sources: "The CIA's torture teachers," Mark Benjamin, Salon.com, June  
21, 2007; "Rorschach and awe," Katherine Eban, Vanity Fair, July 17,  
2007