It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Upholding a lower-court ruling from last year, a three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York sided with the U.S. government, which argued that dozens of videotapes and images of Mr. al-Qahtani relating to his detention should be kept classified because they could be used by extremist groups to incite anti-American sentiment. States the opinion:
The declarations submitted by the government establish with adequate specificity that release of images depicting al‐Qahtani—one of the most high‐profile Guantanamo Bay detainees, whose treatment at Guantanamo has been widely publicized—could logically and plausibly harm national security because these images are uniquely susceptible to use by anti‐American extremists as propaganda to incite violence against United States interests domestically and abroad.
originally posted by: JesseVentura
a reply to: creation7
It seems more like they are just embarrassed about what happened...
The recent Senate Armed Services Committee report on the treatment of detainees captured during the Bush administration’s War on Terror revealed that several American military officers acted to stop harsh interrogations of prisoners. Likewise, the Senate report showed that psychologists versed in the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape “SERE” program, which was meant to train American soldiers how to cope with torture if captured by the enemy, warned officials as early as 2002 that reverse-engineering SERE techniques for use on detainees could be ineffective and dangerous. What has been little noticed in the report is that the same psychologists helped develop the very interrogation policies and practices they warned against.
The new information re-opens a number of questions that have tugged at the conscience of a whole profession since the Sept. 11 attacks. Is it possible for psychologists to uphold the ethical tenets of their profession while working within a system of interrogation that violates those tenets? If not, then should the psychologists, however well-meaning, be held to account for their possible role in torture? Does it matter if they raised objections to the system of interrogation but cooperated with it anyway?
The moral dilemma is encapsulated in the experiences of a psychiatrist and psychologist who worked at the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. According to the Senate report, in an Oct. 2, 2002, memo they prepared a list of harsh interrogation techniques that ended up influencing interrogation policy not only at Guantánamo, but also in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the same memo, they warned that these methods were likely to result in inaccurate tips and could harm detainees. Those warnings disappeared as the memo moved up the chain of command.
Psychiatrist Maj. Paul Burney, psychologist John Leso and a psychiatric technician had been sent to Guantánamo in June 2002 with a combat stress control company. The three had expected to help U.S. soldiers cope with their extremely stressful deployments, but were “hijacked and immediately in processed into Joint Task Force 170, the military intelligence command on the island,” Burney told Senate investigators.