Lost in Translation: The Line Between Journalism and Espionage

NY Times article: "Contracts Tied To Efforts to Kill Militants"

Let me get this straight. So the "benign gov't info-gathering program" was a website known as Afpak, proposed by a former CIA guy and a former TV exec., set up to operate as what looks like a local news service focusing on cultural conflict issues in the context of wartime. And the intermediary - the accused Mr. Furlong - between the military and Afpak told Afpak that the military wasn't interested while also telling the military that Afpak was worthwhile? And when the rug got solidly pulled out from under Afpak, Furlong reallocated some of the leftover funding into one military program while shoving the rest - $15 mill. - into thin air?

Out of all this, aside from the outrageousness of his actions, if verified, it strikes me how apparently this Afpak endeavor was never clearly defined as either news-gathering versus covert intelligence gathering. If the boundary between the two is not recognized by the editors, not to mention our own military, contractors and the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan - two countries where the USA has unstable relations, to say the least - then it's no wonder why journalism is regarded with suspicion and contempt by leaders on both sides (despite what they may say in public about the importance of a free press) and why the work journalists produce – and risk their lives for – are regarded as little more than spying.

It’s no wonder why what we do is lost in translation in countries where there is no free press. It’s no wonder why our own gov’t leaders make such pitiful efforts to defend our work and our lives when it comes to that.

NATIONAL:MEDICAL ETHICS: Hundreds Protest Psychologists' Role In Torture

(previously published here at www.thebulletin.us)

By: Heather J. Chin, The Bulletin

08/18/2008

Outside the American Psychological Association's 116th annual convention this weekend in Boston, between 100 and 200 psychologists rallied together to protest the ongoing role of psychologists in military interrogations, particularly amid concerns of torture.

The demonstrators are among those mental health professionals who have criticized the long-standing relationship as a violation of their code of ethics. They are urging the implementation of an APA ban on its members participating in such military and intelligence operations.

A resolution petition has been submitted and the 148,000 members of the APA are submitting their ballot votes over the next month, with a decision due by late September. If passed, it would expand on the APA's existing policy, passed last year, which some say is adequate.

Some psychologists and health professionals maintain that without psychologists' participation, the interrogations would be more harmful and go unchecked and unaccounted for.

The current policy prohibits psychologists from taking part either directly or indirectly in 19 coercive procedures often considered forms of torture, including waterboarding, the use of hoods, forced nudity, stress positions, rape, mock execution, use of drugs, and exposure to extreme temperatures. The policy says this list is not exhaustive and also urges the U.S. government to discontinue such practices.

"Torture and abuse are always unethical and prohibited ... the question is how to best fight an administration policy that permits such practices," APA's ethics office director Stephen Behnke said to the Boston Globe.

In a statement released earlier this year, the APA describes its position that "No psychologist - APA member or not - should be directly or indirectly involved in any form of detention interrogation that could lead to psychological or physical harm to a detainee ... [and] doing so would be a clear violation of the profession's ethical standards."

At Saturday's rally, where people held signs that declared "Do No Harm" and "Abolish Torture," Nathaniel Raymond of Physicians for Human Rights, a Washington-based health professional organization, maintained at Saturday's rally that "it's about restoration of the values that define us. ... It's about who we are in the world."

The group's director, Leonard Rubenstein, also suggested that the APA should note the American Medical Association's policy of prohibiting physicians from participating in interrogations and divulging whether a prisoner's health would sustain torture.

Other groups that participated in the rally included professional coalitions such as Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union.


Heather J. Chin can be reached at hchin@thebulletin.us

©The Evening Bulletin 2008

HEALTH NEWS: Returning Veterans At Higher Risk For Alcoholism And Stress Disorder

(previously published here at www.thebulletin.us)

By: Heather J. Chin, The Bulletin

08/15/2008

New research supports ongoing observations that military deployment into combat zones puts young men and women at greater risk of developing mental health issues, including post-traumatic-stress-disorder (PTSD) and heavy drinking.

The two studies were presented in a themed issue on violence and human rights by the Journal of the American Medical Association, as was a study that found suicide rates for returning combat veterans were no higher than rates for the general U.S. population.

In the study on alcohol abuse, returning service members who had seen combat were 63 percent more likely to experience new-onset heavy and binge drinking than those who were in non-combat areas.

The rates for new-onset heavy weekly drinking was 8.8 percent, with it being 25.6 percent for binge drinking, and 7.1 percent for other alcohol-related problems.

Binge drinking rates were 31 percent higher for combat veterans than for those not exposed to the same level of violence.

The results also showed a higher risk for younger service members compared to older personnel, and a higher incidence rate for Reserve or National Guard members compared to members in other military branches.

Surveys were taken of 48,400 military personnel before and after assumed deployment (between 2001-2003 and again in 2004-2006), setting a pre-deployment precedent for drinking levels and alcohol-related issues. Only 5,500 were actually deployed into combat zones, with 5,661 deployed into non-combat areas. The rest remained on active duty in the Reserve or National Guard.

The researchers suggested in their report that alcohol use likely serves as a coping mechanism for returning soldiers, as it does for individuals in the general populace. To combat this unhealthy response, the building and provision of familiar and stable support networks of trusted family, friends or fellow veterans is best - anywhere that doesn't involve meeting at a bar.

A separate study on excess alcohol intake lists additional dangers as including a greater chance of developing metabolic syndrome, which includes obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes.

This study by the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion defines excess drinking as more than two drinks daily for men and one drink a day for women, as well as binge drinking.

In the U.S., 58 percent of drinkers fall into this "excess" category and a majority had engaged in at least one instance of binge drinking, according to a recent survey cited by the researchers in their report.

Researchers suggest that public health messages emphasize the cardiometabolic risk of excess drinking. This study will be published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.


Heather J. Chin can be reached at hchin@thebulletin.us.

©The Evening Bulletin 2008

Comment To: Don't Ask Don' Tell article

Added: Thursday July 24, 2008 at 09:09 AM EST

Unfortunately...
I think I am in agreement with John M. on this topic. I have never served in the military, and I think only those who did or currently do should have a say in it. From what I see in movies about our military, part of the training is to push aside all of the "me" identities, resulting in uniform soldiers, with uniform behavior. Letting someone openly be gay, imposing their personal tastes on others in the military is unfair. Then some should be allowed to play loud rap music and wear big gold chains, some should be allowed to wear KKK t-shirts, and some should be allowed to sleep with teddy bears and dolls. See the point? The military expects a certain type of behavior. If you can't do it, you are unfit to serve in the military.

Carl C, East Orange, NJ

NATIONAL: Congress Hears Testimony To Lift 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

(previously published here at www.thebulletin.us)

By: Heather J. Chin, The Bulletin
07/24/2008

A House Armed Services subcommittee heard testimony yesterday in support of ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans openly gay and lesbian individuals from serving in any branch military. This is the first congressional hearing to be convened on this issue since the policy was enacted 15 years ago.

The hearing is aimed as a preliminary effort before the proposed repeal is pushed forward to educate both Congress and the public about the negative effects of the current policy both on the ground and in the ability of the military as a whole to utilize the best and most skilled people for the job.

H.R. 1246, or the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, seeks to repeal the ban and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. It is co-sponsored by 134 members of Congress and supported by many retired military personnel, including former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman John Shalikashvili and over 50 retired generals and admirals.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., and 121 co-sponsors first introduced the Act in 2006, but didn't push it forward since a presidential veto was certain to result. House Democrats - plus five Republicans - plan a full presentation of the bill in the next Congress, when there is a new president.

In a July 8 interview with Military Times, Sen. Barack Obama has said he supports a repeal in that "at a time when we are pressed, we should have an attitude of 'all hands on deck'" and "everybody who is willing to lay down their lives on behalf of the United States, and can do so effectively ... should have the opportunity to do so."

Sen. John McCain opposes repeal, maintaining in a letter to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay rights group, that to do so would enable "the polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness" and "elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units."

In the 15 years since "don't ask, don't tell" has been in effect, 12,342 service men and women have been discharged, according to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and the General Accounting Office, including those with specialized skills and at least 58 Arabic linguists as of 2007. That amount peaked at 1,273 in 2001 and then fell to about half that after Sept. 11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released on July 19 found that 75 percent of respondents said openly gay people should be allowed to serve. That number was 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

Although no Pentagon representatives will speak, testimony will be heard from openly gay former Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who was the first U.S. soldier wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a retired and openly lesbian servicemember who was on duty in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, and retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, who is heterosexual.

The controversial law served as a compromise to then-President Bill Clinton's attempt to fulfill his 1992 campaign promise to allow openly homosexual men and women serve in the U.S. military. It was created by then-chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, D-Ga, and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell.


Heather J. Chin can be reached at hchin@thebulletin.us


©The Evening Bulletin 2008

Commentary: "Rape Hobbles Bush Administration Policies"

(The following is both an expression of understanding of this Truthout article by Ann Wright and a critical response to the first comment posted below the article.)


While it would have been nice to have a little more of a breakdown of the progressive rapes and sexual assaults of Japanese women and girls by U.S. servicemen, that must not be taken to detract from the terrible fact that it is even occurring. There should be NO attacks occurring.

Similarly, the eventual dropping of charges in that one case, and the claim of lack of evidence in the other, DOES IN NO WAY MINIMIZE the fact that the attack happened in the first place. There are legal wranglings and political pressures on the Japanese courts by U.S. interests unfortunately, yet inevitably, involved, and it is small comfort to have the accused servicemen prosecuted or suicidal years after the fact for repeat offenses on American women -- after being allowed to retire or be dishonorably discharged for the previous offense in Japan.

The fact remains that women around the world -- whether civilians or servicewomen; abroad or at home -- are needlessly and thoughtlessly put in danger without access to fair and adequate legal and medical recourse. The fact remains that the culture of the U.S. military (and by extension, facets of U.S. society) accepts sexual assault as part of the lay of the land -- part of a boys will be boys mentality.
That mentality is not acceptable in the grade school classroom and is certainly not acceptable in what is supposed to be one of the noblest and most representative institutions of our nation.