7/13/04

Review of Part III  

In Part III of this series of four articles, I explained the effects of certain torture and stress-and-duress interrogation techniques; compared the effects of those techniques to those of more benign, every day experiences; and explained why such techniques are generally ineffective in obtaining valuable intelligence information from prisoners and detainees.

What Part IV will cover

In Part IV, I will present two legal definitions of torture; define and discuss dissociative disorders and explain how they can be artificially created via torture; and discuss one reason why some forms of inhumane torture are not considered torture by legal authorities.  Finally, I will list numerous reasons why torture should never be authorized as an interrogation technique.  

Top of Page

To view any section in Part IV, click on its link below:

Legal definitions of torture        Torture and dissociative disorders        Defining torture        Why torture should not be permitted

Legal definitions of torture

In June, 2004, Human Rights First provided the following legal definition of torture, as found in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:  

    [A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on 
    a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
     punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, 
    or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any 
    kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or 
    acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.  It does not include 
    pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [1]  

The same report states that a 1994 U.S. federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. Section 2340A) defines “torture” and “severe mental pain or suffering” as follows:  

         (1)   “Torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically 
    intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental 
    to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

         (2)   “Severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting 
    from 
        (a)  the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;         
        (b)  the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of         
        mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or 
        the personality;
        (c)  the threat of imminent death; or
        (d)  the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain 
        or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other 
        procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality   

Top of Page

U.S. government-sanctioned torture and dissociative disorders

On its web page entitled About Trauma: Dissociative Disorders, [2] the Sidran Institute states: 

    Recently considered rare and mysterious psychiatric curiosities, Dissociative Identity Disorder 
   (DID, previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder or MPD) and other Dissociative Disorders 
    are now understood to be fairly common effects of severe trauma in early childhood, most 
    typically extreme, repeated physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse.

On BehaveNet’s Clinical Capsule web page, DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR: Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), [3] the following criteria are used to diagnose a client as having DID.  They are published by the American Psychiatric Association in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision:

    A. The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states (each with its own 
    relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self). 

    B. At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's 
    behavior. 

    C. Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by 
    ordinary forgetfulness. 

    D. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or
    chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial 
    seizures). Note: In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other 
    fantasy play.

Dissociative disorders, including DID, are further explained on the Dr. Joseph F. Smith Medical Library web page, Dissociative disorders, [4]  

    The dissociative disorders are a group of mental disorders that were fist classified separately in
    the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) in 1980.  
    DSM-IV (1994) defines the distinctive feature of dissociation as “…a disruption in the usually 
    integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or perception of the environment.”  All 
    dissociative disorders are defined as causing significant interference with the patient’s general 
    functioning, including social relationships and employment.   

Most recovering survivors of government-sanctioned torture and mind control have been diagnosed as having Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). This mental condition is considered the most extreme form of dissociative disorder, and includes all major symptoms of dissociation.   

The above-mentioned web page describes each of the symptoms:    

         Amnesia – as opposed to amnesia caused by a head injury or chemically induced blackout, this 
    kind of amnesia “is marked by gaps in a patient’s memory for long periods of time or for traumatic 
    events….[it is] ‘spotty’ and [is] related to highly charged events and feelings.”  

         Depersonalization  - “…the patient feels that his or her body is unreal, is changing, or is dissolving.  
    Some patients experience depersonalization as being outside their bodies or watching a movie of 
    themselves.”  

         Derealization – “…the external environment is perceived as unreal. The patient may see walls, 
    buildings, or other objects as changing in shape, size, or color.  In some cases, the patient may 
    feel that other persons are machines or robots, though the patient is able to acknowledge the 
    unreality of this feeling.”  

         Identity disturbances – “Patients…often experience confusion about their identities or even assume 
    new identities.  Identity disturbances result from the patient having split off entire personality traits 
    or characteristics as well as memories.  When a stressful or traumatic experience triggers the 
    reemergence of these dissociated parts, the patient may act differently, answer to a different 
    name, or appear confused by his or her surroundings.”  

As you read the following paragraphs that address the mental effects of torture – particular statements made by Judge Bybee - please keep in mind these definitions of dissociative disorders and Dissociative Identity Disorder, and the symptoms of dissociation.   

David Johnston and James Risen (2004) provided interesting insights into the storm of political controversy that resulted from the release of the “August 2002 memo by the Justice Department that concluded interrogators could use extreme techniques on detainees in the war on terror.”  According to the authors, the memo had been “written in response to the CIA’s efforts to extract information from high-ranking Qaeda suspects.”  The authors explained that now-Judge Bybee’s memo explained how far abuse could be taken, particularly during interrogation, and still not be considered torture under the law.      

To be regarded as torture, the memo said, mental pain must also be caused by “threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual’s personality; or threatening to do any of these things to a third party.”  The memo added that the use of drugs under certain circumstances during interrogations would be permitted, as long as their effects fell short of what it described as legally prohibited:  the “profound disruption of the senses or personality.”  The memo then explained at length that the definition of the word “profound” allowed for a broad interpretation of what measures were acceptable short of that.  “By requiring that the procedures and the drugs create a profound disruption, the statue requires more than that the acts forcibly separate or rend the sense or personality,” it said. “Those acts must penetrate to the core of an individual’s ability to perceive the world around him, substantially interfering with his cognitive abilities, or fundamentally alter his personality.” [5]  

Perhaps unintentionally, the phrase, to “forcibly separate or rend the sense of personality” could be used to describe the forcible creation, via mental and physical torture, of severe dissociation in a victim’s mind.  This was a major part of the CIA’s mind-control experiments that were perpetrated against U.S. and Canadian citizens, especially children, for decades. The majority of survivors still suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, because their sense of personality was brutally shattered via torture and more.    

Given the seriousness of the effects of forcibly rending or separating a victim’s “sense of personality,” why aren’t such techniques legally defined as torture? I believe this serious error continues, primarily for the following reason: if a person is tortured in a way that leaves glaring evidence in her or his body and/or mind, people are more likely to feel disturbed when confronted by the evidence. Being confronted with such evidence often generates a sense of horror. That feeling of horror is much more likely to cause such techniques to be defined as torture. And yet, if a person is tortured in ways that do not leave glaring evidence in his or her body or mind, the effects are not as likely to generate a sense of horror. Therefore, the methods used to create those effects are less likely to be considered torture.      

Most people don’t know enough about forced dissociation to know that such a disorder is caused by severe, repetitive trauma. Additionally, many individuals having the most severe forms of dissociative disorders (particularly DID) are able to hide their symptoms to a large degree.  Most of the public is completely unaware of how seriously our minds, lives, and relationships with others are affected by the disorder.  In fact, many trauma survivors – who may suffer greatly as a result of the traumas they have experienced – may continue to be severely dissociated for many years before seeking professional help – if they ever do!  This is, in part, because our society, as well as other societies, will often overlook the quirks, mood shifts, and personality changes that are part and parcel of having such a disorder.

Top of Page

A reason why some forms of torture may be considered “non-torture” while other methods are legally defined as torture  

Professional torturers seem to prefer to use physical torture techniques that do not leave verifiable, physical proofs that might horrify others.  For example, many professional torturers use a stress-and-duress technique that involves forcing victims to remain in unnatural positions for hours on end.  The torturers know that being forced to stay in such positions for long periods of time can cause extreme agony.  And yet, because the resulting physical effects aren’t glaring enough for outsiders to be troubled by them, the also can feel confident that they will not be prosecuted for torture.    

Example: whereas Dissociative Identity Disorder and other dissociative disorders are not easy for laymen – and even many mental health professionals - to recognize, the effects that can result from forcible penetration “to the core of the individual’s ability to perceive the world around him,” resulting in a “profound disruption of the sense or personality” are usually more noticeable and discordant.  A severe psychosis, or total break from reality, is one such result.  Obvious psychological results of torture are much more likely  to disturb the sensibilities of those who are genuinely concerned about the protection of human rights. This is most unfortunate, because the long-term effects of forcibly rending or separating a victim’s “sense of personality” can also cause serious damage in the victim’s mind and life.          

Human Rights Watch (2004) lists several standard stress-and-duress interrogations techniques, including “sleep and sensory deprivation …painful stress positions…[standing] for long periods of time…[being] interrogated while nude” and waterboarding (being strapped to a board and then forcibly held underwater.)  Although some of these techniques may not legally be defined as torture, they can create nevertheless create lasting psychological scars in the victims. Many North American mind control survivors have reported that these are some of the same techniques that have been used by CIA and Military Intelligence professionals to break their minds and wills.  HRW explains that these psychologically brutal techniques are:  

    …clearly designed to inflict a degree of pain and humiliation to soften up prisoners for 
    interrogation, without leaving visible scars. Such techniques are in violation of U.S. legal 
    obligations under the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 
    Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions. [6]     

To understand the seriousness of the effects of these interrogation methods, one would have to experience them, oneself. Those of us who are torture survivors can attest to the powerful negative effects of these forms of covert torture. The effects are sometimes so severe that we blocked out all memories of these events, even developing altered states of consciousness to store the memories to avoid remembering. We wouldn’t have developed amnesia to protect our minds from reliving the terror and pain if the methods hadn’t been extremely traumatic.   

Alfred W. McCoy, professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, writes:     

    From 1950 to 1962, the CIA led massive, secret research into coercion and consciousness that 
    reached a billion dollars at peak.  After experiments with hallucinogenic drugs, electric shocks, 
    and sensory deprivation, this CIA research produced a new method of torture that was 
    psychological, not physical—best described as “no touch torture”…[it includes] two essential 
    methods, disorientation and self-inflicted pain, to make victims feel responsible for their own 
    suffering. In the CIA’s first stage, interrogators employ simple, non-violent techniques to disorient 
    the subject. To induce temporal confusion, interrogators use hooding or sleep deprivation. To 
    intensify disorientation, interrogators often escalate to attacks on personal identity by sexual 
    humiliation.  Once the subject is disoriented, interrogators move on to a second stage with 
    simple, self-inflicted discomfort such as standing for hours with arms extended [a 
    stress-and-duress technique].  In this phase, the idea is to make victims feel responsible for their 
    own pain and thus induce them to alleviate it by capitulating to the interrogator’s power…Although
    seemingly less brutal, “no touch” torture leaves deep psychological scars on both victims and 
    interrogators. The victims often need long treatment to recover from trauma far more crippling than
    physical pain. The perpetrators can suffer dangerous expansion of ego, leading to escalating
    cruelty and lasting emotional problems. [7]  

Hernan Reyes, M.D. further explains the negative effects of covert torture:   

    [It] has to be underlined that visible and apparent lesions are only part of the story, and may 
    indeed not be the worst part of all.  ICRC delegates are trained to see beyond the mere scars or 
    marks of torture they may initially see or be shown.  ‘The worst scars are in the mind” (quoted 
    from Dr. Sten W. Jakobsson, Stockholm), and it is much easier for [a] torture victim to show the 
    wounds on his back than…the wounds on the soul.  What could be called the “WYSIWYG” (term 
    meaning “What You See Is What You Get”) approach to documentation should be avoided at all 
    costs…Unfortunately, many health professionals who work with asylum seekers, for example, 
    have to produce “physical evidence” to prove that torture has taken place.  Psychological evidence
    of torture has yet to be accepted in most countries as valid evidence. [8]    

Top of Page

Why no form of torture should ever be permitted  

      1. Some individuals, and groups of individuals, might strongly desire to elicit certain information from prisoners, particularly if that information could lead to a stronger degree of safety for the interrogators and/or for those they represent.  I understand this desire.  When I first began to remember what had been done to me by those I had trusted, I wanted to kidnap those individuals, one at a time, pump them full of truth serum, and interrogate them in a padded room until they would tell me who I was still in danger from, and how I could be mentally reaccessed and revictimized.  Although I still occasionally entertain similar fantasies, I choose not to act them out.   

The need to obtain information that could be used to protect oneself and/or others is one of the primary reasons why many government employees working in the U.S., Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and beyond, went to extreme lengths to elicit information from some detainees who were arrested after 9/11.  Because they were deeply horrified and emotionally wounded by the attacks, and because they were acutely aware that more attacks could occur, some of the government employees chose to ignore certain laws, and did whatever they believed was necessary to elicit such information.   

In addition, some of these employees’ criminal actions may have also been fueled by a dangerous personal need to punish or hurt the detainees they had exercised control over.  As a nation, we were terribly traumatized by the events of 9/11, and suffered many overwhelming emotions as a result.  Some government employees unfortunately chose to vent their rage they felt towards the real aggressors, onto proxies – the detainees.  Alexander Cockburn (2004) reported that several individuals who were detained and abused in the U.S. after 9/11 “filed a civil complaint with a US court describing their beatings at the Brooklyn Detention Center, being forced to walk naked in front of female guards, put in a tiny cell lit 24 hours a day without blankets, mattress or toilet paper.” [9]

Unfortunately, behavior that is based on strong human emotions is often very short-sighted.  The part of our brain that makes decisions based on logic is unable to operate effectively when the other part of our brain that houses strong emotions is dominant.  For this reason, many mental health professionals counsel their clients to never make major decisions while in a strong emotional state.  When our emotions are out of control, we are more likely to make serious errors in judgment.  One of the gravest errors made by individuals who abused, tortured and/or murdered detainees after 9/11, was that they did not consider the lasting political and social implications of their actions.      

They also overlooked the fact that numerous laws specifically forbid torture.  In two reports, The Legal Prohibition Against Torture (2004) and Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody (2004), HRW lists a number of documents that include laws specifically prohibiting torture:

The individuals and organizations who created these laws may have known that, during times of great stress, some individuals are unlikely to consider the long-reaching effects of torture, because they think only in the moment. This is why our governments must emphasize awareness of, respect for, and obedience towards laws against torture.   

      2. Walter Kalin, Professor of International Law at the University of Bern, Switzerland, writes:   

    Because of its far-reaching psychological effects, the harm inflicted by torture on the victim     
    cannot be undone.  Therefore, prevention is of primary importance…As the former Special 
    Rapporteur on Torture of the UN Human Rights Commission, Peter Kooijmans, has rightly 
    stressed, torture is never an isolated phenomenon: “It does not start in the torture chambers of 
    this world.  It begins much earlier, whenever respect for the dignity of all fellow human beings and 
    the right to have this inherent dignity recognized are absent.”  Therefore, safeguards against 
    torture must already be built up in the treatment of prisoners and other detained persons. [11]  

     3. Later, Kalin again quotes Kooijmans, who “accurately called torture the most intimate human rights violation, as it takes place in isolation and is very often inflicted by a torturer who remains anonymous to the victim and who regards the victim as a faceless object.” Unfortunately, the same problem of perpetrator anonymity has been reported by many recovering North American mind-control survivors.  We consider ourselves very lucky if we are able to positively identify some of the sadistic individuals who had tortured us – physically and/or psychologically.  Most of the perpetrators chose not to wear any form of identification, and many used aliases while in our presence.  The same problem occurred at Abu Ghraib: some of the intelligence personnel chose not to wear any form of identification.  Several even gave false names (e.g., “James Bond”) to those prisoners who requested their names.   

      4. Reparations made towards torture victims cannot undo psychological damage.  Although Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has offered financial reparations to some of the abused detainees, Kalin argues that “acts of torture cannot be undone and psychological damage continues long after the physical wounds on the victim are healed.” Although Kalin does acknowledge that “reparation and compensation for such victims may enhance the healing process by supporting the victim’s sense of justice,” the fact still remains that reparations cannot conveniently erase the long-term psychological effects of torture.   

      5. Human Rights Watch reports that stress-and-duress techniques “are in many cases identical to techniques of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that have been used by repressive regimes around the world, and condemned by the United States.” [12]  

If the U.S. were to condone torture by government officials or foreign governments in its fight against terrorism, it would betray its own principles, laws, and international treaty obligations. It would irreparably weaken its standing to oppose torture elsewhere in the world. And it would provide a handy excuse to other governments to use torture to pursue their own national security objectives. [13]    

How can we set the standard for the respect and protection of human rights, and insist on sanctions against countries that flagrantly violated such rights, if we do the same?  Human Rights Watch reminds us that during “his State of the Union address, President Bush spoke about the horrifying torture techniques Saddam Hussein has inflicted on prisoners in Iraq.  He described the use of electric shock, burning with hot irons, acid, and rape. He said that the Iraqi government tortured children to get their parents to confess to crimes. President Bush concluded, ‘If this isn’t evil, then evil has no meaning.’”   

How can our governments and leaders justly accuse other governments and leaders of being evil, if our governments commit similar atrocities?  What right do we have to invade a country, based on the claim that we seek to free its people from a brutal tyrant, if we then proceed to abuse some of its citizens in brutal ways?      

      6. How can our political and military leaders be considered trustworthy if they do the opposite of what they claim?  Eval Press, a journalist, provides an example of the lasting political effects of double-edged hypocrisy:  

    When U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld charged in March [2004] that Iraq had violated 
    the Geneva Conventions by parading captured U.S. soldiers on television, the U.S. media were 
    awash with stories about the fine-points of international law.  Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions
    does in fact state that prisoners ‘must at all times be protected…against insults and public 
    curiosity.’  But there is something else that the Geneva Conventions prohibit: torture. And on this 
    score, Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration have been notably less attentive to the 
    letter of the law. [14]  

In the same article, William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA is quoted as stating:

    When you are conducting a war in the name of the rule of law and at the same time violating the 
    most fundamental rule of law, you are clearly handing fodder to your adversaries, who will then 
    say, “Look, all this talk about freedom and ideals and justice is just wind.”   

Finally, Press quotes Oxford scholar Henry Shue: “For better or worse, the United States sets precedents and examples…We’re very visible.  If the most powerful country in the world has to torture, how are we supposed to convince anyone else that they shouldn’t torture?”  

      7. Human Rights Watch gives another reason why we must avoid the use of torture during interrogations:   

    Using force or the infliction of pain to overcome an individual’s desire to maintain silent during 
    interrogations not only violates the victim’s right to be free from torture but also his or her right not 
    to speak during an interrogation…The Convention against Torture provides that any statement that 
    has been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any [court] proceedings, 
    except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” [15]    

      8. Another argument is that torture can easily become the first step down a slippery slope of immorality, from which return may be difficult, if not impossible.  If we allow certain atrocities to become the norm during interrogations, then some  interrogators will probably attempt to test legal boundaries by doing a bit more, or perhaps a lot more, to the prisoners than they are authorized.  This occurred at Abu Ghraib.  Example: Josh White and Scott Higham report that “U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees during interrogations.” [16]   At least one handler let his guard dog loose on a prisoner; it attacked the prisoner and bit both of his legs.          

      9. Two concerns about the effects of the use of torture especially apply to the intelligence community:  a) varying rules about the extent of torture and other techniques used against detainees could cause conflict between various intelligence and military organizations and employees; and b) intelligence operatives’ identities could be made public if they are investigated. James Risen, David Johnston and Neil A. Lewis address these concerns:

    The methods employed by the C.I.A. are so severe that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of 
    Investigation have directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level 
    detainees…the F.B.I. officials have advised the bureau’s director, Robert S. Mueller III, that the 
    interrogation techniques, which would be prohibited in criminal cases, could compromise their 
    agents in future criminal cases, the counterterrorism officials said. [17]  

Later in the same article, they write:   

    There is now concern at the [CIA] that the Congressional and criminal inquiries into abuses at 
    Pentagon-run prisons and other detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan may lead to 
    examinations of the CIA’s handling of the Qaeda detainees. That, in turn, could expose agency 
    officers and operations to the same kind of public exposure as the military now faces because of 
    the Iraq prison abuses.     

      10. In June, 2004 the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that some of the interrogators who harmed Iraqi detainees could face a more serious problem: prosecution for war crimes. While addressing reports of recent “torture and psychological coercion against prisoners to extract intelligence,” the report states:            

    Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, if committed against detainees protected by 
    international humanitarian law, constitute a grave breach under the Geneva Conventions and 
    therefore of international humanitarian law and is prohibited at any time, irrespective of the status 
    of the person detained…The above-described acts [torture and psychological coercion against 
    prisoners to extract intelligence] might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal.  
    [18]    

     11. Even if they do not believe that certain detainees have valuable information, CIA and U.S. Military Intelligence personnel may nonetheless decide to perform harmful techniques on the prisoners, using them as human guinea pigs to hone interrogation and torture skills and techniques.  Like the Nazis during World War II, these professionals may also choose to covertly experiment on the detainees, against their will, to test and develop newer methods of interrogation, torture, and psychological control.  

     12. Torture erodes the consciences and souls of those who perpetrate it against victims.  In 1993, Doug Payne reported an incident in Georgia, U.S. in which three teenagers initially went to the home of a wheelchair-bound man to rob him. Instead, for 24 hours, the victim was “bound, beaten, stabbed, strangled, taunted and subjected to the agony of having salt poured on his wounds” before he finally died. [19]  In the same article, Payne interviews several experts on torture:   

         Dr. Janet Warren, an associate professor at the University of Virginia’s Institute of Law, 
    Psychiatry and Public Policy who has studied sadistic sex offenders, states that “a torturer wants 
    ‘to see fear, humiliation, an awareness of death’ in the victim..[as] they can see these 
    experiences floating across the face of the victim…it’s a sense of having ultimate power, that 
    you’re God.’”    

         Dr. John Hunter, clinical director of the Behavioral Studies Program at the Pines Treatment  
    Center in Portsmouth, Virginia, “has studied individuals who ‘derive gratification through the 
    suffering of other people’”. He states that “‘actually seeing the pain, suffering, humiliation – that’s 
    a turn-on in and of itself.’”   

        Dan Pitzer, a Vietnam veteran and former POW, became a civilian instructor at the Special  
    Warfare Center at Fort Bragg , North Carolina. He states that, while he was tortured as a POW, 
    he could “‘see a gleam’” in the offender’s eye.  He added, “‘Once you get a man down, it becomes 
    fun…They’ve got complete control over this person.  The more [the victim] begs for mercy, the 
    more [the torturer] enjoys it.’”   

         Douglas Johnson, Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis, explains 
    the process that some individuals go through before they are ready to torture others.  He states: 
    “‘Torturers are not born, they are made.’”  He then explains that many governments will 
    deliberately expose torturer candidates to “violence and degradation ‘over a long period of time, to 
    accustom them to violence and to increase their acceptance of it.’”   

      13. Even if Military Intelligence and CIA personnel choose not to use torture techniques to mentally and physically condition individuals to become torturers; they may have utilized psychological tests to identify which recruits have histories of severe childhood abuse.     

My husband, Bill Sullivan, has given me permission to share his personal example with you.  In 1978, he retired as a Sergeant Major from the U.S. Army.  He had served in the military for 30 years.  We now have strong reason to believe that he was chosen to be a subject of government mind-control experimentation after enlisting in 1948 at the tender age of 15.  After enlisting, he was given a battery of psychological tests that were administered by intelligence personnel.   

In the 1990s, Bill was diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder (now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder). His mental/emotional disorder seems to have originated in early childhood.  He suffered many traumas that included physical and mental abuse, and the deaths of a younger brother and both parents. The dissociative disorder was later reinforced by the painful loss of many close relatives in rapid succession, and physical and emotional traumas he experienced while serving in front-lines infantry in Vietnam.   

Bill continued to suffer from amnesia after his diagnosis of MPD, and had many flashbacks and memories that indicated that he had been used against his conscious will, in highly trained altered states of consciousness, by Military Intelligence and CIA personnel. These personnel assigned new names to each alter-state that they created and then trained. While under their control, Bill performed covert assassinations (mostly as a sniper) and personally tortured and interrogated military prisoners in South Vietnam – most likely as part of the CIA’s infamous Phoenix Program. 

In the 1990s, as Bill continued to remember the parts of his life that he had mentally blocked-out, a sadistic torturer alter-state started to emerge at home. This part of Bill’s shattered personality identified himself by an assigned code name, and was very unlike Bill’s normal persona. This torturer alter-state happily bragged about specific methods he had used, to inflict extreme pain on North Vietnamese prisoners during the periods in which Bill had been assigned to work as an analyst in Army Intelligence, in South Vietnam .   

As Bill began to connect and integrate with this particular alter-state, he recognized that this split-off part of his personality stored and compartmentalized the tremendous, pent-up rage that Bill had felt towards an alcoholic stepfather who had severely abused both Bill and his mother for years. (The stepfather disappeared after Bill, age 13, walked into the house and saw the man brutally beating Bill’s mother, as he had done before. This time, Bill’s mind snapped. First, he tried to hit the man with the sharp blade of a hatchet; then Bill aimed a rifle at him and threatened to kill him. Although several elderly surviving neighbors and relatives have remembered, and have told us, most of the details of that violent night, Bill still cannot remember any of it.)   

Bill’s history is not unique.  I have been contacted by, and have read other histories of, former U.S. military personnel who were also severely abused as children, and then were recruited – after undergoing extensive psychological testing – to perform special ops (illegal clandestine assignments) for the CIA and/or Military Intelligence.   

Their experiences were rather unique, in that they reportedly were closely monitored and mentally manipulated by CIA and Military Intelligence personnel while performing acts under the professional handlers’ direct command.  Such a degree of external control might have been considered necessary by the handlers, who would certainly have known that unhealed survivors of severe childhood abuse are more likely, when tapping into their unexpressed rage, to regress into a vengeful, childlike state of mind.        

Professionally handled, dissociated military torturers may find temporary relief for their pent-up childhood rage as they put their abusers’ faces on prisoners and then assault them.  Unfortunately, the resulting emotional release is only temporary.  Having been powerless and defenseless as children, they might also discover that they enjoy the sensation of being all-powerful and godlike.  Having suffered the indignity and terror that come with being totally defenseless in the presence of much larger, sadistic abusers – with no hope of escape – these unhealed survivors might even feel great pleasure as they watch their own victims squirm in terror at their presence.   

Even if they didn’t behave sadistically towards others in the past, once these unhealed survivors taste the dark sensation of sadistic power, they may choose to continue reenacting their childhood traumas on other victims after leaving the service.  Some former military personnel, who reportedly were ordered by professional handlers to kill and torture prisoners, have stated that after they returned home to their partners and children, they sometimes regressed into childlike alter-states and then, after regaining full consciousness, learned to their horror that they had sadistically abused their partners and/or children.

14.  Unfortunately, they are not the only government-sanctioned torturers who suffer the results of sadistically harming others. Janice T. Gibson, Ed.D. and Mika Haritos-Fatouros, Ph.D explain why even individuals who had healthy childhoods can nonetheless become emotionally scarred from performing atrocities against fellow humans:     

    [Studies] of Vietnam veterans have revealed that committing abhorrent acts, even under the 
    extreme conditions of war, can lead to long-term problems. In one study of 130 Vietnam veterans 
    who came to a therapist for help, almost 30 percent of them were concerned about violent acts 
    they had committed while in the service. The veterans reported feelings of anxiety, guilt, 
    depression and an inability to carry on intimate relationships. In a similar fashion, after the fall of 
    the Greek dictatorship in 1974, former torturers began to report nightmares, irritability and 
    episodes of depression. [20]  

     15. Our current generation, as well as the next several generations of Americans, may suffer greatly from the long-term effects of our government’s abuse and torture of Muslim detainees and prisoners in Iraq and beyond.  Many of those detainees, particularly those who are members of Al-Qaeda, reportedly believe strongly in revenge.  Due to many years of experience as a torture survivor, I know that when a person is tortured, rage will almost always be one of the emotional responses.   

One of the main reasons that intelligence handlers continued to torture and sexually assault me in demeaning ways as an adult, just before sending me on a covert operation, was that they understood that torture and demeaning sexual assault create rage.  Although I had been conditioned for many years not to express anger outside of their mental control (the control did slip a few times at home), they wanted to keep stoking the fires of rage that had started to build up in my mind and body when I was very young.  

By increasing my level of rage while disabling my ability to express it away from their control, they were able to harness and use it to inflict serious harm on, and even kill, targeted individuals – particularly men. This worked well, because I had been assaulted and tortured by men. They used my blind rage to assault men I knew absolutely nothing about. Using hypnotic suggestion and more, they influenced me to focus the rage away from them and onto the innocent targeted victims.  Torture-created rage is much more powerful than regular anger. It almost takes on a life of its own.  If unleashed, it can never be satisfied, no matter how many times it avenges itself on one innocent victim after another, after another. [21]  

Because of this rage, the number of terrorist enemies the United States had in the past has now probably multiplied exponentially.  Not only will many of the abused victims nurse a deep rage and desire to avenge themselves against the United States; so will many people who care about them; and so will many countrymen who never even met them.   

Having used unnecessarily brutal and demeaning methods to rip the lid off Pandora’s box, our country may be unable to staunch the resulting flow of hatred and rage that may brutally inflict itself upon us, for generations to come.   

Perhaps all of the preceding arguments against the use of torture in interrogations can be summed up in a simple, powerful statement written by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, the editors of Counterpunch: “Torture destroys the tortured and corrupts the society that sanctions it.” [22]