Preventative Detention and Our Crimes
I guess the news that came out of yesterday’s great chat (if I do say so myself) with Sheldon Whitehouse is his analogy on preventative detention.
To argue by analogy, one can go to court and to a civil standard of proof show that someone is a danger to themselves or others, and obtain a civil commitment restricting their freedom. If we can do this with Americans, it seems logical that we could also do it with foreign terrorists. The question is, what checks and balances should surround the initial determination of danger, and what safeguards should stay with the person through the period of confinement? I look forward to hearing more from the Obama Administration about what schedule of rule of law safeguards they intend to apply, but I think that the example of civil commitment shows that it is not categorically forbidden to restrict someone’s freedom based on a finding of danger.
I was already thinking of what it means to use the analogy from psychiatric detention, but reading Digby talk about issues has a way of bringing them into focus.
I think that may be even scarier than Gitmo. It implies use of psychiatric hospitals for political prisoners, a la the Soviet Union. It’s a terrible analogy.
Whitehouse is a good guy and I don’t mean to pick on him, but this just won’t do, even to make a point. Involuntary committment cannot be used for criminals, who everyone knows may very well re-offend when they are released, so it certainly cannot be used for terrorist suspects who are accused of being at war with America. (Unless, of course, you think it is insane to be at war with America.) The history of involuntary commitment is hideous throughout world history and it remains controversial to this day, even when it is used for people who are truly mentally ill. To even think of it as a way to argue that such policies are analogous to the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects is really dangerous.
You see, while I know this whole preventative detention thing is being proposed for a range of detainees, having read two recent filings from Abu Zubaydah’s lawyers and TheraP’s take on those filings, I’m mostly thinking of Abu Zubaydah, whom our government has been calling one of the 9/11 plotters for years, but who did not get charged when KSM and the others got charged. I can’t help to shake the notion that this preventative detention stuff is supposed to solve what we do with Abu Zubaydah. On one hand, Zubaydah really is someone who has a severe physical condition that will hinder his ability to mount a defense.
[Between September 2006 and August 19, 2008, Zubaydah] has suffered approximately 150 seizures. According to Petitioner, the seizures are brought on by noise and bright lights, and begin with a headache. It is an excruciating pain, starting at the base of his skull near the top of his neck, and traveling along a line that traces up the back of his skull, along the center and slightly to the left of center. It is the same area where he was injured in late 1992, fighting the communists in Afghanistan. He feels as though electricity is pulsing through his head.
Along with the headache, his right hand begins to shake. It is a small tremor that he cannot control. On some occasions, he loses the ability to grasp with that hand. Sometimes he also has a tremors in his right leg, below the knee, again beyond his control. At the same time, he feels as though his ears are closing. Sounds become faint, indistinct, and distant. Occasionally he is dizzy, and sometimes he vomits.
Then he faints. Petitioner suffers a complete loss of consciousness, collapsing to the concrete. He can be unconscious for hours, though it may be less, depending on when the guards come for him. But always, he emerges from his episodes when the guards revive him. He does not wake himself up. The guards use ammonia in his nose or wake him up by carrying him from the floor to his cot. Sometimes when they revive him, he is in a state of semi-consciousness. He can hear, faintly, but cannot move, speak, or respond to instructions.
When he is conscious, the headache returns, only this time it is worse. It feels like someone is drilling in his head. And always the pounding is in the same–the rear of his skull and slightly to the left. Sometimes he slams his head with his fists, or against the wall, in an unsuccessful attempt to relieve the pain. Very commonly after his episodes, he vomits. He is dizzy, and cannot stand up. The feeling of electricity in his head returns. [footnotes omitted]
In another filing, Zubaydah’s lawyers argue he cannot remember events–particularly those of which he was accused in his CSRT–without his diaries.
Mind you, at the times when he is not suffering from such seizures, Zubaydah does seem competent to help his lawyers, but these seizures sound utterly debilitating, and stress appears to be one of the triggers for them.
So what to do with Zubaydah, and the detainees reported to be psychologically even less fit to stand defense?
But Zubaydah reveals all the problems with the suggestion of preventative detention. Not only is there the tremendous problem that Zubaydah’s condition–and that of other detainees–can be traced directly to our treatment of them. Zubaydah, for example, told the ICRC that ever since being waterboarded, he loses control of his bladder when under stress. And even detainees who didn’t have Zubaydah’s history of head injury ended up far less competent than him after our treatment of them. So are we really proposing indefinite detention for a bunch of men who can’t be tried because we drove them crazy?
And, too, the suggestion that we could not try Abu Zubaydah is a nice fiction that allows us to avoid admitting how bad some of the errors the Bush regime made. The biggest impediment to Zubaydah mounting a defense, of course, is not his own condition, but the fact that the government has thus far refused to give him the parts of his diary that will not only prove (Zubaydah maintains) that he actually condemned 9/11, but also show that any confessions he made, he made under torture. Has the government refused to turn over those diaries because they were destroyed, like the tape depicting Zubaydah’s torture?
I don’t know, but I do know that this farce of indefinite detention would allow the government to dispose of Zubaydah without having to either admit they destroyed exonerating evidence or deal with the fact that the treatment we gave him makes him much less competent to stand trial. Not to mention deal with the fact that his treatment was almost certainly illegal under a range of interpretations.
Detain Zubaydah indefinitely, and you sweep all these problems under the rug. Along with a human being.
So to those who make the analogy, in apparent good faith, that indefinite detentions would be just like psychiatric detention, I challenge you not only with Digby’s point, but also with the burden of proof that these detentions are not just a cop-out to avoid admitting what we did to a number of men in detention, that they’re not designed to ensure we can "move forward" without any accountability for the crimes committed against them?
Are we just entertaining the possibility of indefinite detention because no one is ready to level with the American people that Abu Zubaydah–on whose treatment all the rest is predicated–is not who we were told he was?
Are we just entertaining the possibility of indefinite detention because no one is ready to level with the American people that Abu Zubaydah–on whose treatment all the rest is predicated–is not who we were told he was?
Yes.
You’re saying I should have just skipped ahead to the end?
Who’s this “we”, kimo sabe? Once the point is arrived at where the answers flow so easily from the questions, it means, AOT: [a] the right questions are being asked [thank you], and [b] at least SOME of us are already handling it.
For reasons I expect have to do with our nature, it seems the process of getting more of us into that heap of the some can be slow, laborious, and painful, and results in only a fragile consensus. Not that it’s all that reliable measure, but on the reader comments feature to the WaPo piece you linked to immediately before, I did a bit of a rough head count at a point where the comments had reached about 330. I doubted [and still do] that there are any clean taxonomic meaningful dividers, so I drew a single line between those that focus on condemning Pelosi as a grand deceiver on the one and those that did not — meaning the latter side contained Pelosi supporters, agnostics, and those who in some way disposed of the phony controversy as such. Those in the first category ran up a clear lead right from when the piece went up on the site, but within just a mere five pages of then-18, those in the second category had established a decided 2:1 advantage, and page by page that grew. So it went something like whenever the persistent ‘debate’ between Darwinian evolution and magical creationism actually gets a court hearing: lots of sound and fury, then things calm down and get rational, the evidence rules the say, and most — MOST, but far from all — join in voicing a consensus for rationality … that lasts until someone from the ignorant denier crowd wants ANOTHER debate — overwhelmingly often on the basis that they have been–and so the ‘true, the righteous and the patriotic of America” have been ’stabbed in the back’.
Well, I for one am grateful that you did not skip through to the end. The Detour through Digby was worthwhile all in itself. Sen. Whitehouse’s initial statement seems so reasonable– until you think through the implications, as you have done for us here. I await the thoughts of TheraP on this score, too.
A couple of other thoughts: Whitehouse may be alluding to an older model of treatment where the mentally ill were “institutionalized.” A court decision referred to as “Olmstead” ruled, however, that people should be accommodated by local services, rather than sent away to some remote institution. I wonder if the Olmstead issues might be at play here. But maybe not.
Department of miniscule nitpicking: In the paragraph following “So what to do with Zubaydah,…”, Z’s name is spelled “Zubdayah.”
In any case, EW, a very worthwhile presentation of this important issue, even if you didn’t drag the movie “Minority Report” into your discussion. (*g*)
Thanks,
Bob in HI
I’m hoping this particular article gets picked up by other blogs and news sources, and quickly. It is so smooth and cogent that “regular” (whozat?) people can follow it quickly and cleanly through to that last paragraph.
Hoping?
You can help that along by using the “spotlight” feature at the end of EW’s post.
*You* can be that little bird whispering in the ear of 10 people in the MSM.
Bob in HI
Oh, that’s cool! Which ones would you suggest? I’ll start working on my list now. Many thnx!
Ah, Abu Zubdayah, close cousin to the guy we once claimed was responsible for 9/11.
Thanks.
It seems to me that a better analogy is domestic prisoners who are found not to be proven guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. This is not to say that I think all the persons who remain at Gitmo are innocent, but we do have analogs among domestic cases in which evidence was found to be tainted, and even though some involved in the cases believed the accused were in fact guilty, they were nevertheless freed because the evidence was not sufficient to hold them.
Coming from Illinois, I have followed the cases (now 13?) of death row inmates released when it turned out that they could not be proven guilty because key evidence or key procedures were found to be faulty, incorrect, or fraudulent. In at least one case, one of these death row inmates was convicted as a teenager, and subsequently became profoundly mentally ill living in prison. No one argued that this person should be held indefinitely because he was no longer competent. In addition, some of the death row inmates who have been released have subsequently committed crimes. It would not be at all surprising to learn that some of them are bitter, angry, anti-social, and well-schooled in criminal techniques when they are finally released. You could say that in committing crimes after release they are “returning to Jihad.”
It seems to me that those who do not want to face the consequences of the monstrous actions taken by our government are hoping to hold these people until they get the Padilla result — dehumanize them until they are willing to plead guilty. Problem solved.
Surely, Zubaydah is not the only prisoner we’ve detained and tortured for years who is now mentally unstable and only occasionally able to assist in his own defense. Preventive detention would hide a system of torture and legal incompetence, not an individual example of its consequences.
Oh, I agree, absolutely.
THe only reason I focused on AZ is because I had read these filings recently and because the lies we told about him–on the grand scheme–are the worst. If AZ isn’t the mastermind of 9/11, if he didn’t have info on additional terror attacks, then the very claims they kicked off the torture regime with were entirely fraudulent. While I think most sane people agree that is in fact the case, I’m not sure who has the courage to come out and say it straight out.
It is useful to personalize a corrupt system with specific examples, especially when it is defended in practice by the party historically committed to oppose it.
Not many people are going to be all that sympathetic to Zubaydah. But something about it has really started haunting the [former] literary scholar in me.
Absolutely, and great post Marcy (and by quotation, Digby). Whitehouse’s comparison to psychiatric confinement is unfortunate. If such comparisons continue by the Democrats, I’ll take this as less a mistake or lazy thinking, and instead an ominous sign of dishonest argumentation.
The issue is not complex at all. It’s been there all along (and I’ve said it before): long ago, we decided that the possibility of government tyranny, or unjustly imprisoning the innocent, is a greater evil than the fact that any individual guilty party might be set free. Attacks on habeas and institutionalizing preventive and indefinite detention are a dire threat to any semblance of democracy.
In fact, when it comes to psychiatric detention, it’s very difficult to implement. A person is found a danger to self or others and can be detained at first (in California and most states) for only 72 hours (5150). A hearing then takes place, with right of representation for the client, and then another 72 hours of detention or a 14 day hold (5250) can be enforced. Then there’s 5270, for 30 days, etc., and at each step the patient has rights, there are lawyers, hearings, etc. It is very very hard to put someone away for psychiatric purposes for an indefinite period. The closest precedent to what Obama is proposing is the law that some would like passed to keep convicted pedophiles in prison after their term is up, until someone verifies that they are safe to return to the community. Theoretically, that could keep someone locked up forever.
It IS dishonest argumentation. Totally fucking dishonest, and it was not always thus. What I studied in history, and in law school, was men who said that our country fought for, and our men and women died for, our ideals and principles we were founded on. That although the human cost was high, the morals and principles were resolute and worth every penny and drop of blood, no matter how deep the respective pool, that was expended. Those were the terms things were framed in. I challenge people to go back and look at leaders all the way from the founders to Lincoln to FDR. This shit about individual personal safety and one drop of American blood being to much to allow and that anything goes to protect that one drop – all that is new and foreign to me.
That Obama is glomming on to this happy horseshit all the while expending untold amounts of American blood and life in Iraq and Afghanistan and god knows where else – just like freaking Bush and Cheney – is heinous and unforgivable. As you might can discern, I am not a happy camper. Better than Bush is NOT an acceptable standard. There are several core areas where he isn’t even better than Bush at all; not even slightly. This is ridiculous, this is not what this country is supposed to be about. American exceptionalism is really American depravity and self indulgence.
It’s a con on top of a con on top of a con, isn’t it (or some better framing, if you will)? First you con the people into thinking they need to be safe, then you con some into being the ones who are going to make all of us safe, then you expend our tax-dollars and ship our soldiers off to Iraq/Afghanistant to kill and/or be killed so the leader can tell us how safe he is keeping us.
I posted a video up @ 58 above. It is by Ava (who, as far as I know, is still a teen) who interviews three vets who learned only too well. Heart-felt interviews. I thought the video was very appropriate, particularly for Memorial Day.
When they started using made-up labels for these people to justify not extending Geneva conventions to them, and pretending that some kind of special legal protocol was needed to bring them to trial, and above all using Guantánamo Bay to imprison them, it was clear that a day like this was going to come.
I shall never be persuaded that creating a dilemma like this wasn’t the intention. But like much of the worst, we might somehow manage to keep it away from the door for now.
Just how cold war are we going to get now?
It makes me shudder.
I went to grad school with the son of a Soviet psychiatrist who eventually became one of the refusniks.
It destroyed the father to deal with the past dx’s he had made for the regime, even after his exile. He ended up washing floors at Creedmoor.
How many unique individuals were, at one time or another, declared to be “Bin Laden’s Number Two,” or “Bin Laden’s Number Three?” 20? 30?
How absurd. What ever happened to the term “alleged?”
When and how did the media become so co-opted that it began to totally disregard the basic rules of its own profession? What Role did Karl Rove play in that?
Parroting unsubstantiated propaganda like “9/11 Mastermind” runs counter to everything that America used to stand for. Freedom Of The Press does not extend to slander, libel or propaganda.
Who will hold the media to account for its role in this coup?
First let me say that I have great difficulty expressing my thoughts. I am not nearly as articulate as the rest of the commentors on this site. I read, read, read what you write and learn a great deal. Thank you! I have the greatest respect and admiration for what you are doing.
When I first read Obama’s statement about ‘preventive detention’ a chill when up my spine. I really think this is much more that just what to do with these unfortunate souls at Gitmo; how can we dispose of it without looking too much like monsters? I think it is also about getting us to a point where it will be much easier to put away Americans who take an ‘inconvenient’ position on the official government policy-of-the-day.
IMO many of the happenings of the past few years have occurred to see just how far the gov (whoever they really are) can push. Look how ‘popular’ tasering seems to be now with police. If the gov can get away with torturing the ‘terrorists’, now let’s see how far we can take it on uncooperative Americans.
I also think that part of this whole torture thing is to make Americans afraid to speak out against the gov now, as well as in the future. Same with this preventive detention crap; same with the wiretapping and data mining of telephone, internet, etc. And to a great extent, it is working. Look how relatively few people are in the streets protesting about the illegal wars, the torturing, the economic mess, etc, etc, etc. I wonder how many people are even afraid to write to their newspapers, post on blogs like this, or even say what they feel on the telephone.
Excellent point.
I think you expressed yourself very well.
The actual Mastermind of 9/11 was in fact Dov Zakheim, Rumsfeld’s Comptroller at the DOD (the one who “misplaced” $2.3 trillion, as announced by Rumsfeld on 9/10). His chief accomplice was Kobi Alexander (presently in the Witness Protection Program, courtesy of one Richard B. Cheney, the operational commander of 9/11), allegedly, of course.
If we’re going to debase ourselves and “the last best hope” by turning into a full-blown security state, why not one more wave good-bye to the republic by giving each of these sacrificial victims a decent chance at appearing before the public and trying to explain themselves?
Schedule the public hearings, provide them the means to tell their stories by arming them with their counsel of choice and other means to mount a meaningful ‘defense’, set up the tv cameras, and get on with it.
Predicted outcome [hardly mine alone]: We’re going to be ashamed.
We are ashamed…POWs from all of our nations wars have been disgraced. All Americans have been degraded and the Constitution degraded.
This is crap. I have included the link here for the procedures followed for involuntary commitment in Nebraska. I doubt our procedures vary much from other states.
If you read the list of rights for those under involuntary commitment you would easily see that this type of detention is NEVER considered indefinite. The list of rights includes frequent reviews, independent docs, lawyers and court hearings to determine level of threat.
This is not what we have been doing with these people…And if this is what they propose, they would have to give these folks a heck of lot more autonomy.
This is a crappy analogy. First step is a 24-48 hour hold, during which the patient is observed and imminent threat determined. If no imminent threat the patient must be released. If threat is determined the patient is handed over for a 30-90 day hold but this is done with a court hearing, testimony from docs and some level of proof required.
Then the patient can ask for review at any point after that to prove they are no longer a threat.
These people do not sound like they are capable of meeting criteria for a 24-48 hold much less a 90 day hold. These people would have to be making “current” threats, and be proven to have the means to carry them out independently.
No, this is a bad analogy and does not fit my knowledge about the use of involuntary commitment. Hell, if it was that easy to commit and hold someone do you think we’d have the number of deaths we do in regard to domestic violence?? Are you kidding me?
http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/beh/Commit/Commit.htm
wavpeac
I’d love to see a diary on what involuntary commitment really involves.
wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of 5150 (involuntary 72-hour from that section of CA’s Welfare & Institutions Code), if you want to take a quick look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)
Here’s the pertinent section from the CA W&I Code itself, though you might want to go back to Section 5000 to get a more thorough take on it.
It’s been years since I’ve worked in the MH area, but there seem to be several people here who are expert and fully qualified to produce a diary on this subject.
I suspect that an entirely new set of laws, rules, regs, etc., would be developed for those individuals from BushCo’s torture prisons, and those would be set at the federal level.
Oops! Here’s the CA W&I Code section specific to 5150:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-…..=5150-5157
Me, too.
Bob in HI
Thanks for this!
Maybe this is what Whitehouse has in mind. At any rate, it is excellent grist for the mill.
I’ll say this for Obama: Instead of going the Unitary Executive route and issuing decrees, as George W. did, Obama is at least opening things up for a genuine debate.
I hope Rachel Maddow sees your comment, and uses it to open up a whole new line of inquiry.
Bob in HI
“I’ll say this for Obama: Instead of going the Unitary Executive route and issuing decrees, as George W. did, Obama is at least opening things up for a genuine debate.”
I very much agree; and that’s why I’m not really being facetious at all when I urge public hearings. The history of the country has been using the president like some sort of confessional to cast off responsibility for national security sins, thereby ducking collective responsibility [Collective: There’s a word guaranteed to limit a career in politics.] It APPEARS at least that Obama is saying: Instead of going to the dark side like you-know-who, I’m saying this is something that has to go through Congress — which, I feel bound to observe, I do not expect will exactly overwhelm anyone here with optimism.
My point is this MUST be wider than Congress putting it under a couple of scewed Constitutional microscopes, and wider than batting it back and forth with the deeply compromised and limited Congress.
The only shed of hope I retain through through each day of released information confirming how low our goverment had fallen is similar to your statement- perhaps President Obama proposes these plans and legal arguments deliberately so Congress, the courts and the people will reject them, one at a time, as unconstitutional and unAmerican. Thus refuting the core of unitary executive power in an deliberate, interactive and instructive way…perhaps I am dreaming
The analogy to civil commitment is deeply, profoundly flawed. Mental health reviews, or contagious disease quarantines, are borne of a balance of concerns for both the mentally ill/contagious person and the rest of society, and an acknowledgement that the confined person is not at fault for their present condition and should be helped – I don’t think anyone is suggesting this is the motivation for Guantanamo inmates or anyone else in the world who the government may think is a danger in the future. The analogy is closer to Bedlam prison than mental health commitment process, which is completely based on the lack of mens rea that the judicial process is designed to analyze. Closer to WWII interment for being Japanese/Italian/German and your “propensity” for harm than the mental health system – and even then, there are deep problems with incarceration and forced treatment.
You know whose opinion on all this would be worthwhile considering? Dawn Johnson.
There are alternatives to preventive detention for potentially dangerous criminals, once there has been a judicial determination that a crime has been committed. (I know, that’s the whole point, nobody wants a public trial!) In Canada, if an offender completes a sentence and can no longer be held, and there is deemed to be a real threat of recidivism (usually sex offenders who did not take treatment in prison, but also violent offenders), the Crown can apply for a peace bond immediately on release, and show cause to a judge that there should be monitoring on the released person, and conditions to stay away from kids, other criminals. The power of the state to monitor and control people, even SUPERVILLAINS like terrorists, through strict bail and reporting conditions is very broad – why can’t these tools be used for convicted terrorists who have done their time and are still dangerous?
Yeah, I’m with wavpeace and ishmael here. It is slightly closer to the civil commitment of sex predators than what is discussed by Whitehouse But even that is inapposite. First off, you have to have been convicted as a sex offender to start with (here not so much on fair trial and real conviction) and then only when that sentence in prison is completed can the state petition for the civil commitment. The way it works here is once an offender completes his sentence and is scheduled for release, the offender may be reviewed for violent sexual predator criteria. If it is determined that the offender is a violent sexual predator, Arizona law provides for a civil commitment to the Arizona State Hospital. The sex offender may request an annual review to determine if he is eligible for release into society, at which time the label “predator” is removed.
Even this process is light years more due process than what Obama/Whitehouse appear to be contemplating.
Why don’t you and wavpeac collaborate on an Oxdown on this subject?
I’d like to see that.
Bob in HI
Mental health detention law is not my field, but I will suggest this to a real authority on the field I know who has published extensively on the issues and served on Canada’s commissions on the topic.
I think all politicians have a “Willie Horton complex.” They are so afraid of being accused of being soft on crime or security, they feel compelled to vote for the toughest laws and rules they can get away with. They feel the public will forgive them for erring on the side of being tough but not if someone commits a horrible crime when it was possible for them to have been locked up. Democrats are just as likely to suffer from this complex as Republicans. They are all vulnerable to attack ads featuring hypothetical crimes …ordirty bombs.
Otherwise, Cheney would already have been impeached and jailed. He understands the complex very well and that was the dynamic underlying his speech last Thursday.
Who in Congress would be brave enough to vote against Obama if he asked for a preventative or prolonged detention program for detainees that “could not be tried and were considered a threat?” As a matter of fact, that is what we have had and still have now. Boumediene has been released finally, but his fellow captives are still in Guantanamo in spite of a judges orders to release them. How many are still being held that have been ordered released? And that is without a defined program of ‘prolonged detention.’ Yet, who other than a few civil libertarians are asking why or are making waves about it. Who wants to be accused of being soft on terrorists? Cheney is still going to be calling the shots and setting the tone and there is not much Obama can do about it. It will not matter that most of the detainees were released under Bush. All it will take is for one detainee released under Obama to get blamed for one act of terrorism and the press will pound him into mush. Any disagreement on that?
Actuall, while i understand the point, and don’t totally disagree, I do not think it has to be that way. The leverage away from that conclusion is to quit making it a self fulfilling prophecy. If enough people would get the word out, calm the fears, and remind others what this democracy is about and founded upon, mayb e things would be different. But, instead, we get a lot of the “gee whiz, it is what he has to do and we must all accept that”. We don’t have to accept it.
I agree that we don’t have to accept it. We just can’t ignore the reality. Fear mongering works. Dirty tricks work. Demogoguery works. We need a better educated and better informed electorate and a press not driven by what is driving it now…sensationalism, ratings, corporate censorship, etc.
Three Iraqi vets share their views, including the how ill-served we all are by the media.
http://www.iraqfallout.com/Watch.html
Should the link at Digby go to Digby, instead of Wikipedia?
Fixed now, thanks.
It’s worthwhile bearing in mind that, once there’s a precedent, inevitably some administration is going to come along with a perceived need to apply to it a expanded definition of ‘threat to national security’ — like to a Risen & a Lichtblau & a chief editor & a publisher at the Times, or even more likely to a Sy Hersh; or to a talking head like an Olbermann or a Maddow; or maybe they’ll start smaller, such as with a insightful blogger posing difficult questions or with a preternatural ability at putting puzzle pieces together.
Inevitably.
dint WE knock abu Zubaydah in the head in the first place ???
so all of the reasons that this guy is crazy are the responsibility of the party that now wants to lock him up cuz he’s crazy
first we knock ya in the head, and give you mental problems. Then we lock you up and torture you, to “crazy you up” real good. and then we go to court, say “this guy is crazy so who cares what we do to him”, which is more of the same (hat tip to theraP for providing evidence to support this theory)
anybody see a pattern …
Abu Zubaydah is the poster child of the neocon ideology
it ain’t our freedom they hate
it’s stuff like this
please excuse my use of non-clinical terminology in the above portion of my comment
an to answer this:
well, Jim Garrison tried to find out who Lee Harvey Oswald really was, and look what they tried to do to him
and we’re still dealing with the same bunch of crooks too
so yeah, it could be that everybody is playing along to cover their own ass
it’s been known to happen, a time or two
No, I think the Russians knocked AZ in the head. He was, if not one of OUR Mujahadeen, then one of the muj we supported to beat up the communists at the time.
I thought Zubaydah was knocked in the head in 1992
I could be wrong
an FTR, all of the Mujahadeen was “our” Mujahadeen, even the ones who didn’t like us in the first place
just another repuglitarded disaster that was hung on the neck of a Democrat
That 92 date is the one cited in his lawyer’s documents. It was while he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan!
Britain seems to be able to survive the prospect of confronting the abuses and crimes committed in the fight against the IRA – from the Guardian in August 2008:
“Up to 300 IRA members are to attempt to have their convictions overturned and sue the British government for compensation for wrongful imprisonment, the Guardian has learned.
Some former inmates of the Maze and other prisons during the Troubles have consulted lawyers and prisoners’ groups on how to quash convictions, many of which they allege were secured through tampered evidence and confessions extracted under torture and duress…..
According to sources connected to the truth and reconciliation process in Northern Ireland, the prisoners include a number who signed statements admitting to crimes while allegedly being tortured or threatened in custody, as well as a number convicted on “technicalities”.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli…..ernireland
But the problem is that these folks have not been convicted of anything. The rules applied here would have to be similar to those used with domestic violence or “home terrorists”. These folks without a criminal conviction are very difficult to hold based simply on “threat”.
There would be required court hearings and reviews to determine the level of threat. This might be used as a method to free these folks or keep an eye on them, or make sure they take their meds, but people subjected to involuntary mental health holds have rights of review, to choose their own docs, to argue on behalf of themselves.
Just because a guy threatens to kill his wife or someone else, does not mean you can hold them forever. You have to observe the person and determine that they are a current threat. (24-48 hr hold)If the guy says: “I promise I won’t hurt her, I have no reason to kill her” they will have to let him go.
I see this as different than when someone has been convicted of a crime that has a known recidivism rate. In that case you have a fact, in regard to past behavior. In these detainee cases we have no such proof. Level of danger would have to be reviewed and could NOT be determined simply by hearsay evidence as opposed to a court hearing and conviction.
These people are innocent according to our constitution. They can be held for 24-48 hrs if there is an imminent threat. Then there MUST be a court hearing to determine the need for a long term hold, but if the patient is taking meds as prescribed, following doctors orders, compliant in treatment, not expressing threats, verbally agreeing not to act on threats, they must be released.
Do you think it could be argued that these people are a threat right now, today, given the level of mental disturbance?
I just don’t see where this gets around the criminal issue. Involuntary Commitments are civil proceedings, not criminal. When they involve criminal behavior and convictions this is different than holding people who have not been convicted. (and recidivism of the crime is considered, but that is applied to convicted criminals).
Remember the case of the child predator who sat and took pictures of children at the park, observed children etc…He could not be arrested just because he “might” molest a child.
If that were the case we could arrest every guy who ever threatened to hit his wife or did hit his wife. She could say, “he beat me up last night”, and they could keep him in jail, forever. It doesn’t work that way.
Bmaz, I just saw your comments. Yeah.
Noting the link fatster posted on the earlier thread, to the news of Senator Feingold’s expression of intention to take up the ‘constitutionality’ of preventive indefinite detention under national security [PIDUNS – need a better acronym], it also strikes me that this bright idea from well-intentioned folk like Obama and Whitehouse exemplifies the bright ideas well-intentioned ignoramae tend to come up with. Obama was a teacher and is a politician: ivory towers and the mob mentality; Whitehouse is a serious thinker but was a prosecuting attorney and is a politician from something of a rural relative utopia, where dealing with the local gun-toting rowdy lad with the serious mental problem is a relatively simple matter of calling in the police and d.a.’s office to deal with the crime and then making sure the lad is isolated from society pending possible treatment and recovery and his ability to us it’s safe to let him back into society. Poof! He’s gone, in the interim it’s a budgetary problem and then, decades downpike, if ever, it’s someone else’s problem. Neither has any direct or useful experience with the thorny and largely unsolved — and maybe insoluable — problems of preventative indefinitive detention under personal and local security rationales.
from something of a rural relative utopia
Umm… your image of Rhode Island is perhapf a bit sanitized.
Half the population is urban, with all of the distinctly non-utopian features of big old port cities, including a persistent mobbed-up-ness that is the very opposite of what your phrase evokes.
At first, reading Whitehouse’s survey of current alternatives under discussion, I felt relief that the terminology from civilian psychiatry has emerged. Yet, after a further few terse allusions, the spectre of the CCCP style gulag appeared in its stolid gestalt, antidemocratic; as the diary says, sweeping the mentally ill under the detention carpet for a life sentence.
What I think is part of the ongoing dialog in the administration is the seining of several strains of detainee commission hearings. One of the categories is going to be physiologically impaired detaines based upon prior conditions and/or torture inflicted overlay of somatic and psychological disorders.
In the state whose relevant code I studied in an employment, terms are similar to the summary wavpeac describes, but with more and sooner* avenues for release to community or to caretakers, or as some of the counsel present described, consignment to some form of supervised care mostly institionalized.
I think some injured plaintiffs, or detainees, might have solutions of the involuntary confinement sort within a context of international pacts, and I would hope State dept would attend to those processes to assure optimal outcomes.
With respect to AZ’s left brainstem injury a decade prior to arrival in Gtmo, the right side neurologic symptoms in the extremities appear to corroborate persistent effects from the early damage to the left ‘low brain’. However, AZ described to the ICRC in the NYRB report that he was an experimental case for roughing up prisoners by inducing calvarial injuries or hematoma. Someone has to read the CT scan, and the MRI, of the current list of brain injuries. The FBI IG report at p67ff discusses a variety of mostly redacted tortures applied to AZ. In this same document’s discussion of Qahtani, there are several mentions of applying lessons learned from AZ to more focused tortures to give Q.
I suspect some process like disability apportionment needs to occur here as well. Maybe modern German law has traversed these specialized parts of medicine at the interface with politics.
But the Whitehouse phrases danger to self, danger to others, are standard starting points for preventive detention. Ironic, that Yoo abstracted the ‘equivalency to organ failure’ from health medicine’s vocabulary as well.
—–
*See this plain vanilla discussion of options for incarcerating, for example, derelicts with mental disease; or psychotic homeless persons who have known cycles of mania but also lengthy times in which those individuals can function in a somewhat civil manner.
“However, AZ described to the ICRC in the NYRB report that he was an experimental case for roughing up prisoners by inducing calvarial injuries or hematoma.”
When I read this one sentence, somehow, the whole bone-chilling logic to indefinite preventative detention within a political context (as possibly opposed to a truly (but debatable) psychiatric context) came screaming at me from the Holocaust.
Does the name of the good “doctor” Mengele ring a bell with anyone? “Medical experiments” to see how long a woman or child or just any weakened prisoner could withstand chemicals, or butchery, or “even just” being left out in the cold? (Cf.: “…it’s just a splash of cold water…”).
I live in France, and in the course of a master’s degree in clinical psychology, I interned at different hospitals and clinics, including psychiatric institutions. I became somewhat familiar with the procedure known as “commis d’office” (involuntary confinement). It is always limited in time and justification, and similar to other US statutes. Briefly: initial observation for a maximum of 48-72 hours, daily verification by the admitting psychiatrist as well as a legal requirement to determine if the person is an imminent danger to self and others, etc. All involuntary stays in psychiatric institutions are regularly reviewed, usually weekly through a peer review process (attending psychiatrist(s), psychiatric nurses, etc.).
The system is far from perfect, and a number of doctors and psychiatrists regularly call into question how the system is used. But this is a very far cry, horrifically far, from “experimenting” on prisoners. Experimenting on prisoners to see what they can withstand before there was “irreparable” damage? And the “psychiatrists”, “doctors” and “psychologists” are participating? (I’m using quotation marks for these so-called medical professionals (cf.: Hippocratic oath, #1: Do no harm. Here in France, there is also a similar deontological code for psychologists that they are required by law to follow).
And now that AZ has been used as an “experimental case” (”Doctor” Mengele indeed), he is experiencing major medical and/or psychiatric problems to the point of being regularly incapable of responding to even simple questions? Does it even matter whether or not his incapacities are wholly a result of his “Mengelization” from a human point of view? So, speaking of “Our Crimes”: “what did you do during the war, Daddy?”
Truly bone chilling….
Thank you, bruce.
First, “Do no harm”
The rest of “what has been done”, by a psychologist, by several psychologists … is depravity. Of the most despicable nature, for it is manifest at the hands and the whims of “healers”. You have placed Mitchell and Jessen with their proper “company” …
That you, like TheraP and other thoughtful and articulate psychologists are speaking out, makes a huge difference for those of us who appreciate the promise of the POTENTIAL role psychology might play in the noble and decent, human quest for understanding.
You do credit to a profession which has great need of it.
DW
I gotta go family calling me for dinner and fun! If I theraP or one of the others doesn’t beat me to it, I’ll put something up regarding the procedures. I know of no way to detain people forever without a conviction of a crime or without frequent court review.
But I will have to do the research later.
Amy Davidson has an interesting piece up in the New Yorker, Close Read: See You in Court about
I think we are seeing an attack on Democratic institutions lately.
First of all, there’s an attack on the courts. The attack goes something like this: Our courts can’t possibly deal with these complicated cases involving terrorists [not to mention their abuse in places like Gitmo]. Therefore we have to create a whole new kangaroo court to make sure that we can lock up these guys forever.
Next, there’s an attack on our prison system: Our prisons are totally inadequate for dealing with these terrorists. Certainly no place in the 50 states that can hold them. We have to lock them up in someplace like Gitmo (or Bagram, or…)
Then there’s the attack on Congress, which allegedly screwed up the impeachment of Bill Clinton, so now we can never use impeachment again because, you know, it just creates awful tensions and doesn’t work.
I think this is all meant to soften us up to thinking, Hey, we don’t really need the Courts, or Congress. What we really need is a Godfather to keep us all safe.
What wretchedness is this???
Bob in HI
Exactly – the whole idea that the President’s job is ” to keep us safe” is absolutely feudal and pre-Enlightenment. The President is not meant to be the “Lord Protector”.
If you did a poll and asked the American public a question about what was the first responsibility of the President, how many do you suppose would put “keeping the country safe” on top?
Well, as high as that would be, I’d start with trying to convince the person who said this, who should know better:
“In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. It’s the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.”
Barack Obama, May 21, 2009
Bless the Daily Show video maven for digging out the Bush footage saying the exact same thing, and Jon Stewart for playing them.
Unconstitutional, pants-wetting, rube-pandering, Village-pleasing bullshit.
They take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States… thats it. They protect and defend the citizens of the United States for political reasons.
They claim that they ” …protect and defend the citizens of the United States …” for political “reasons”, whether they actually do protect the citizens is open to question. Increasingly so …
(Hope you don’t mind my wee “change” about what can be deceived with?)
DW
Yes, the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but he’s not going to be elected and get a chance to take that oath unless he can convince the voting public he’s capable of protecting the country first and foremost. Yes, it’s political. Exactly.
Obama knows that. That’s why he was self-contradictory in his speech last Thursday. Values…values….values…rule of law….rule of law……(but I’m not going to let anybody out that can come back and blow us up….law or no law….prolonged detention with everybody’s approval ahead of time so no one can complain.) Idealism meets the political reality.
Obama keeps saying that he wakes up every morning thinking about how he can keep us safe. I wish he’d spend at least one morning thinking about how to keep us free!
This is another framing battle. Shift the framing to this: Keeping our system of values [i.e., embedded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights] and our whole way of life safe. That is where the emphasis should be, and framed that way, I think the public will embrace it.
Framed in terms of “public safety,” you pave the way for fascism.
Bob in HI
Your comments about ‘framing’ are most important,bob, and I certainly hope that folks are paying attention.
If, Obama is kicking the Bush-can down the road as EOH suggests, in his Oxdown Gazette diary, “You Must Remember This,” then reality “shaping” remains (as if there were any doubt) the political “game”, with a (articulate) vengeance, and we must all become much more adept at perceiving what terminology will best gain serious attention, lead to understanding, and change behavior.
This whole things drives me batshit crazy. Of course I don’t want to be mowed down or exploded by a terrorist, but it creeps me out to hear Obama (and Bush before him) tell me that his job is to keep me safe. And a couple weeks ago Eric Holder said the same thing. Keeping Americans totally safe is not possible. It should not even be attempted, because there’s no way it can be accomplished without violating many people’s civil liberties.
You know how conservatives are always whining that liberals created “the nanny state” – where the government takes care of you cradle to grave? (Yeah right). No, it’s conservatives and warmongers who have created the NEW nanny state – the one where the government has to elide our rights because there’s a terrorist hiding under every rock.
“…under every rock …”, or in any and every bottle of more than 3 oz. of liquid that might go for an airplane ride, or in any “product” that is not wrapped in un-open-able plastic.
Yet, duct tape and plastic could save us all./S
Ya never know.
Preparing for a “new” dark age.
The enlightenment?
Be VERY afraid!
I wish Obama would sign an Executive Order to get rid of that stupid ass 3 oz. rule. And by government fiat we have to stuff all our 3 oz. containers into a 1 quart ziploc bag – why, exactly? Why couldn’t it be a 2 quart bag? Do you know how many 3 oz. containers you can cram into a quart bag? Not very many. And the GWOT will last for the rest of our lifetimes. When will we come to our senses??? Again: driven batshit crazy.
Janet Napolitano, are you there?
The New Dark Ages, The Age of Endarkenment.
Did s/o say something about a nurturing god-father prez? (how do you make a smiley face here)?
“The Age of Endarkenment”.
A new word?
A most-excellent “term”.
Well-”coined”.
So appropriate in the Mid(or, most?)-evil era of the Divine Right of Money, mooreagal.
(From the “other” coast, so I bid you any early morning, good night.)
; ~ D
Thank you. I like Mid-Evil! May I quote you?
Years ago, a friend produced a pamphlet called “Endarkenment: The High Road to Lower Thinking.” I still have it and it’s very funny, couching serious matters in humor.
Share, and share a … “like”, mooreagle?
It’s the only way to go.
;~D
Perhaps, your friend would not mind if you shared some tales from the “… High Road …”.
We could use some pamphleteers, about now. (Thomas Paine, we’ve need of you.)
DW
Does this guy sound terribly dangerous to you? I think he’s probably got problems going to the bathroom himself much less plotting the next 9/11.
Oh, no.
U.S. Relies More on Allies in Questioning Terror Suspects
By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: May 23, 2009
WASHINGTON —” The United States is now relying heavily on foreign intelligence services to capture, interrogate and detain all but the highest-level terrorist suspects seized outside the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to current and former American government officials.
. . .
“In the past 10 months, for example, about a half-dozen midlevel financiers and logistics experts working with Al Qaeda have been captured and are being held by intelligence services in four Middle Eastern countries after the United States provided information that led to their arrests by local security services, a former American counterterrorism official said.
. . .
“Human rights advocates say that relying on foreign governments to hold and question terrorist suspects could carry significant risks. It could increase the potential for abuse at the hands of foreign interrogators and could also yield bad intelligence, they say.”
{Lots more}
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05…..=1&hp
That so many “leaders” and, apparently, so many citizens have chosen to embrace the fear-laden perspectives that, “9-11 changed everything,” and that, “the founders of this nation could not have conceivably foreseen the conditions we now face,” suggests that those of us who must rely on reason and rational consideration in the “debate about torture and “preventative” detention face an uphill struggle.
While reason, among other things, can call upon historical example and rational consideration can appeal to tolerance and courage, the situation we face would be far more hopeful were the President, Barack Obama, himself not championing the continuation of torture, although “outsourced” and the (supposedly) newly minted notion of anticipatory detention.
Appeals to emotions, such as fear and (easily manipulated) distrust of “others”, simply because they are claimed to be “different” as well as “prevailing conditions,” such as culturally enforced ignorance, are very difficult to counter or remedy in the short term.
Were we able to succeed in pushing for the timely (meaning, “very soon”) release to the public, of the more than 2000 torture – related pictures which are said to exist, and place before the public clear evidence of the role which the “philosophy” of Leo Strauss has played in the behavior of those who have controlled this nation’s foreign and domestic policies, these last eight and more years, we could have reason to rationally consider that the public might well understand the terrible tragedy which is unfolding around and within this nation, as well as finding the courage, as a society, to rise to the occasion and reject this dalliance with what could well be utter disaster leading to the destruction, not simply of the principles this nation claims to represent, but to the collapse of this nation’s society itself.
While it is currently fashionable, among certain academic elites, to espouse the conviction that so long as a society retains what these elites term, a “hierarchical structure,” that it has NOT collapsed, these “viewpoints” offer absolutely no measure of or concern with the “quality”, social viability, or democratic worth of such society.
Those who depend, fundamentally, and act, as a matter of course, upon reason, tolerance, courage and rational consideration can and, without doubt must, insist upon the need of society being much better, more humane and more honest than this.
A lot depends on who wins the battle of the framing. For example, if Cheney can succeed in framing the detainees in Gitmo as “The worst of the worst,” then the battle is lost. But the counter-framing is also beginning to work: calling them “detainees” rather than terrorists or something else. Calling them “detainees” points back to the “detainers” rather than what they might have done.
That’s why it is important to engage the framing battle quickly, not conceding the truth-value of these characterizations.
For example, the desaparecidos of Argentina succeeded in framing the dirty work of Argentinian generals that had long-term salience. Matter of fact, we could use the term for a great number of the Bush detainees. I wish someone would start a list. This would have several advantages in drawing attention to the crimes of the Bush administration.
Bob in HI
A lot depends on who wins the battle of the framing. For example, if Cheney can succeed in framing the detainees in Gitmo as “The worst of the worst,” then the battle is lost.
Then it’s well and truly lost, because Obama not only did not fight that framing but actively fed into it from the moment he became president. His first public sit-down interview with Matt Lauer, to a pre-Super Bowl audience of millions, was not an off-the-cuff affair. So presumably he knew what he was doing when he said of the 252 prisoners remaining in Guantanamo:
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a big fat lie. It is an outrageous statement that could just as easily have come from the Dicktator himself with the substitution of ‘terrorists’ for ‘militants’.
second that.
I believe this is mentioned already, but two considerations about civil commitment due to dangerousness to self or others are that 1) it is an imminent threat and 2) the threat is due to a mental illness.
Both of these things can be assessed by objective experienced professionals falling within an acceptable standard. When people are court committed, one presumption is that, as a condition of their commitment, there is an ongoing effort to treat and rehabilitate their illness.
I think it is a virtual certainty that a significant percentage of detainees suffer from mental illness. Some may have been symptomatic and impaired before detention and, likely, a greater percentage are ill as a result of their treatment in detention.
If we are going hold detainees by some criteria akin to civil commitment due to mental illness, I think it would be absolutely incumbent on our government to engage in a legitimate and serious attempt to treat and rehabilitate them, not to use it as an excuse to warehouse them and throw away the key. With this in mind, perhaps there is a broader approach to treating and rehabilitating un-convicted detainees outside of strict definitions of mental illness that could lead to a stable organized transition for them upon their ultimate release. Just thinking out loud here.
Torture’s psychological impact ‘often worse’ than physical
May 23rd, 2009 7:07 pm
By Elizabeth Landau
‘”The psychological symptoms can often be worse in the sense that person can never recover from that, and may in the end, be in such despair and pain that they take their own lives, especially if they don’t have treatment or support around them,” she [Ellen Gerrity] said.
“Experts say torture victims can develop post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and symptoms such as social withdrawal, confusion and sleep problems.
“They may also show an impaired immune system and have a higher incidence of cancer, said Rosa Garcia-Peltoniemi, senior consulting clinician at the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis, Minnesota.”
ww.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=13938
An article from last December that addresses many of the
canardsarguments invoked to favor preventive detentions.Glen Greenwald on preventive detentions.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Not too many left-coasters here? (smiley)
OK, goodnite then and sleep well.
Torture is an outrage to the totality of self, to the integrity of consciousness, an assault upon the “present” experience of self-awareness in the time and space of the present (+past “sense” of “things” +future “anticipation of …what …will the next moment, minute, hour, day, night, week, month …bring …?!?”).
Outrage and assault. These words cannot convey, cannot begin to convey, the nature of the reality of torture.
For every single one of us.
But we, you and I, we would never, ever, deserve to be tortured, would we?
Nor would anyone else we know; family, friends, acquaintances, any people like us.
Others?
The “proper question”, at the point when torture, let us not mince euphemisms, is contemplated, (or has, already, commenced) is “what” others? (they are, by definition, no longer “who” others, they are not remotely like us, they are, without further question or doubt; savages, natives, bad guys, evil doers a veritable “axis” of evil, they must be stopped, at all costs. They hate us, but we don’t hate them, we hate only what they do. If they would stop, then we would stop, but … they … are being unreasonable and mean to harm us, in any way which they can, forever. If we do not take the war to them, then they will bring it to us. If we do not detain any of their number whom we can catch until they surrender and the war is over, they will do us incalculable harm. We have no choice, they hate us for our freedom and allow us no choice.)
Simply, henceforth, to be termed, THE “others …” (ultimately, this could be a very large and expanding “group”. There is the future to consider, after … all.)
With three simple questions, we are already “there”.
Now?
What to do.
Or is that, really, another question?
What to do?
It may well turn out that the further we are willing to “engage”, in the practice of torture (no minced euphemisms, remember), the more often the “issue” of “what to do?” will arise.
From a number of different directions.
We could “outsource” torture, that could be a “plan”, but then there are “quality control” “issues’ and the need to “pay”, somehow, for these “services”. We could, of course, keep that secret from our “selves”.
That could be a plan.
But, we already know, we have bragged about it.
That was probably a mistake.
Because everybody else knows …
But, accidents do have a way of happening.
So, while we must accept that truth, let us look forward.
Let us look where we are going.
That’s also a plan.
Where will it lead?
Another question.
Can we afford the cost?
To torture other human beings, whoever or “what”ever they, the “others” are, is, simply, to destroy the human being-ness of others.
To torture other human beings …simply destroys our own humanity.
However much we may wish to lay claim to …
Regretfully, you are dreaming.
but I’m not sleeping well…too much to cry about
I did a post on involuntary commitment. http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5440 If you are interested.
Warning…I am only a master’s level person and therefore have not been subjected to the discipline of ph.d level writing!
Thank you, wavpeac.
DW
Sortof OT:
Philip Gourevitch:
“Crime-scene photographs, for all their power to reveal, can also serve as a distraction, even a deterrent, from precise understanding of the events they depict. Photographs cannot show a chain of command, or Washington decision-making. Photographs cannot tell stories. They can only provide evidence of stories, and evidence is mute; it demands investigation and interpretation.
I spent more than a year living with the photographs from Abu Ghraib while writing a book about the soldiers who took them and appeared in them. I saw many more pictures than were ever published in the press, including, I believe, many–if not most–of the photos that the president would now prefer that you don’t see.
Yet in order to tell the story of the pictures most effectively, I decided not to include any of them in the book. I had more than two million words of interviews to work with, and as many words again of government paperwork, and in this way I could show that most of the worst things that happened at Abu Ghraib were never photographed…prisoners were regularly beaten bloody in the showers during interrogation, and there are no photographs of that.”
The Iran op-ed on the same page is Leen bait of a high order.
Yes, I know that this op-ed has nothing to do with Bagram or any of the other places these photographs are said to be of, but I was in a hurry to type.
Well, the rights to life and liberty are equal…
The Constitution states which powers each element of the government has. But the Constitution does not state what principles should have priority in exercising those powers.
Headed to baseball game.
Thanks for your post at Oxdown, wavpeac. I think the key considerations to take from a civil commitment are that the dangerousness to self or others is imminent and that the dangerousness is due to a mental illness. Somebody can’t have a pre-meditated plan or long held wish to commit murder alone in the absence of having an acute mental illness and qualify for commitment.
It is also important to realize, as you point out, that built in to the commitment is the expectation that an ongoing effort is made to treat the illness as well as to coordinate resources for both housing and continued care that allow for transition to the least restrictive environment and discharge from commitment as soon as possible.
In civil commitments, there are built-in checks. The commitment has a finite duration of several months and requires formal review for extension by the court if justified. A patient’s ongoing need for commitment is also under near daily review by a treating physician (psychiatrist) in conjunction with a court appointed commitment coordinator. Both the physician and commitment coordinator work together to decide when to discharge a patient from commitment, which often happens before the initial term of commitment expires. The psychiatrist alone cannot make the determination to end an active civil commitment. During the initial pre-commitment hearing phase (lasting a few days), either one of a physician or court investigator can drop the hospital hold.
Regarding the questions posited at the end of the post, I’m trying to think about how we can close Gitmo and offer the greatest chance of a normal transition for un-convicted detainees back to a life of freedom. Transition is the key because abrupt release for some if not many will be too destabilizing and result in a higher risk for bad outcomes. It is something that I imagine could likely occur in weeks to less than 6 months for detainees.
I think first you have to get the detainees out of their cages at Gitmo and into a secure environment that is more comfortable and humane, and non-threatening. They need to understand that a process is to be undertaken to understand their condition and needs. They should receive full psychiatric/psychosocial evaluations. Detainees in need of treatment should be offered it. If some detainees are clearly not imminently dangerous and ill and can cooperate with assistance, we should do our best to help them relocate and have contact with any available services and support that they choose – and set them free.
I think it needs to be accepted up front that the long term chances of released detainees committing suicide, doing something harmful to others, or failing to thrive in whatever place they reside will be significantly elevated relative to the normal population. That cannot be a reason to justify long term civil detention.
Sorry I missed out on this thread on Saturday. And I’ll try to read through the comments and catch up later this afternoon. But I do have one thing to say re Abu Zubaida. His is a physically-based disability, in my view.
Also, dangerousness to self and others (as related to mental health) is not legislated at the federal level, so far as I know. But by the states. And each state handles these things differently. Also we need both prison reform and mental health issues should not be criminalized. It’s really a civil matter. And such detentions are generally for very short periods of time.
Back to Abu Zubaida. Based on my reading of the documents. And there are extensive comments that I made in one thread on that. Which go beyond the hypergraphia:
My view is that he has an organic (physical) disorder. And that any symptoms which appear to be psychiatric are secondary to the initial brain damage, which we know – for certain – occurred. He needs a thorough medical work-up, particularly related to his seizures, what triggers them and so on. He also needs a complete neuropsychology work-up (in Arabic, by a trained neuropsychologist, fluent in Arabic). He needs accurate diagnosis and treatment. Mental health issues MUST always take a back-seat to physical/medical problems, if a medical disorder underlies the symptoms. Which appears to be the case for Zubaida.
Thus, any “dangerousness” which may or may not exist, is quite possibly related to his temporal lobe dysfunction. What to do with him is another matter entirely. But if, for example, a psychotic person wanted to commit acts of terror, that person should not be branded a terrorist, but mentally ill. I understand the concerns regarding misuse of that label. But if this is a civil court matter, then each person has a hearing, possibly many hearings. On the other hand, to my knowledge, there is not a federal basis for doing this kind of thing. It occurs at the state level. Every day.
I’ll read through the thread and see if I have further thoughts here. (however I shortly have a volunteer activity to go to)
Hope these initial thoughts are helpful in some way. (I too was concerned about the detention issue yesterday and spent the entire day doing another kid of post on it.)
The federal system for the mentally ill is forensic and overlaps with the criminally insane. When someone who is mentally ill is charged with committing a violation of federal law, they get detained in a federal correctional facility for forensic evaluation and treatment. For instance, the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, ended up getting evaluated by Dr. Sally Johnson at the federal facility at Butner, NC to determine if he was competent to stand trial. But yes, civil commitment is a state level function with standards and laws varying between states.
And yes, if a mental illness is due to a medical condition, you treat the medical condition first while simultaneously treating the symptoms of the associated mental illness while they persist. If a person is an imminent danger to themselves or others due to a mental illness stemming from an untreated medical condition, you still commit, if needed, until the person is sufficiently not a danger albeit with an untreated medical condition (if they refuse non-emergent medical treatment) or they are safe and healthy with a treated medical condition.
Thanks for that, Muzzy! I still think his primary difficulties appear to be organic ones.
Sticky wicket, then, if the federal laws are only for the criminally mentally ill.
In my view the man needs treatment for so many things. Including what we’ve done to him of course. If you simply read his suffering due to being deprived of his diaries (like a child of his), your heart goes out to him. His feet are cold and they won’t let him have socks. So he uses his prayer hat to warm each foot in turn. It’s heartbreaking.
Now off. To minister to the truly sick.
It is perhaps necessary to point out that, in these post-Olmstead days of de-institutionalization, mental illness has been criminalized so that a large portion of our mentally ill population winds up in prisons because there’s no where else to put them when they do stuff that is not considered acceptable. It’s not that being mentally ill has become directly criminalized, but if you are mentally ill you are more likely to do things that society in general (and police in particular) are likely to consider disruptive or worse. I know about this most in the case of people who have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, who can be hyperactive, distractable, have difficulty understanding consequences, can be gullible, and may be tactily defensive. Not to mention at risk for addiction. That is a combustible mix. But I digress.
Bob in HI
TheraP,
I second your analysis, although I would use the phrase “Traumatic Brain Injury” to describe what you call “an organic (physical) disorder.” In any case, I agree with the need for “a complete neuropsychology work-up (in Arabic, by a trained neuropsychologist, fluent in Arabic).” I’d also add an MRI or CAT scan (not sure which is more medically appropriate) to check for lesions and other abnormal features.
The term “mental health injury,” being used recently in connection with trauma experienced by war veterans, may also be appropriate.
Thanks,
Bob in HI
OT – I’m sketching.
Ianapsych, but everyone involved in the issues here has, and operates within, their own Personal Belief System.
I propose that a Healthy Belief System is both Massively Coherent and Naturally Adaptive to Changing Circumstances – the mirror analog of a Seamless Ginormous Universe in Constant Flux – all the way from the Heavens down to the Smallest Observable Element on Earth.
This proposition places a Healthy Belief System between the Extremes of Structure-less Incoherence on the one hand, and Overly-Rigid Fantasy on the other hand.
To ’see’ this for yourself, consider the following:
Everything in the Observable Universe – large and small – conforms to the Law of Cause and Effect.
From a point of Pure Dynamic Potential (Chaos) the Manifest Universe Explodes into Structured Being, and follows a steady trajectory of Continuous Dynamic Transformation – compounding up to a peak – followed by decaying down – until the Manifest Universe recedes back into Pure Dynamic Potential.
The first half of the Cycle is Increasing in Complexity of Expression – Compounding Up from Stable Structure to Stable Structure until the Peak of Maximum Manifest Expression is reached.
The second half of the cycle is Decreasing in Complexity of Expression – Decaying Down from Stable Structure to Stable Structure until the Point of Pure Dynamic Potential is reached again.
So, first half of cycle: Chaos -> Inorganic Matter -> Organic Matter -> Humans.
And, Second half of cycle: Humans -> Organic Matter -> Inorganic Matter -> Chaos.
The Entire Process – compounding and decaying – is Both Rational and Sensible, while containing no Permanent or Fixed Elements.
IOW, the Universe and everything in it IS – in fact – Massively Coherent and in Constant Flux.
So, I’m saying that a Belief System is Healthy and Clear when it reflects the World As It IS: Coherently Stuctured and Constantly Changing.
And, I’m saying that a Belief System is Un-Healthy and Confused when it reflects either No Coherent Structure on the one hand, or a Rigidly Fixed Structure on the other hand.
Because the Universe is Massively Coherent – it is a low-quality state – it is Dis-Harmonious Suffering – to Operate within it Indifferent to the Natural Order. What is Naturally Stable and Observable is thereby Experienced as Un-Naturally Un-stable and Hidden by those with Indifferent Belief Systems (”I don’t know what’s going on in the World, and I don’t care”.)
And, because the Universe is in Constant Flux – it is a low-quality state -it is Un-Balanced Suffering – to Operate within it Attached to a Fantasy of Fixed Beliefs. What is Naturally Clear to Insight, as a consequence, is shrouded in a Fantasy of Confused Bias by those Attached to their Belief Systems. (”I know exactly what is going on in the World, and My way is the only right way.”)
What is ideal then, imvho, are Belief Systems that feature Well-Reasoned Present Understandings of Dynamic Circumstances, in accord with the Natural Order.
In conclusion, Operating within a Belief System that is both Accurate and Flexible – in between the Extremes – in Our ever-changing World – is the Shared Path of Natural Peace, Harmony and Balance for Everything in the Universe – for All that ‘is’ and All of US.
I just read about ABC starting (or reviving) a series called. “V.” It’s about *aliens* who come to earth promising “hope and change” while the real intent is enslavement.
This should be interesting. Metaphor perhaps?
If Zubahdah is one of the prisoners who is too dangerous to be freed and can’t be tried, that’s totally illogical. The man is so physically damaged that he can barely find the bathroom much less master-mind a plot against Americans. I would think his relatives already have that covered, depending on their inclination toward revenge.
Over at TPM one poster has an idea that there is a clause in Geneva that allows for detaining people indefinitely. Not that that was the plan, but that the clause allows detention till hostilities are over. So instead of national laws, what if they just use “treaty law” to detain the person? Then we don’t have to worry about mental illness or whatever being the deciding factor. That, to me, was very persuasive. (Not that I agree with detaining anyone, you understand! But I found the method to be a persuasive means of doing this under an international law. Also, some of this person’s concerns for what the right-wing is doing via propaganda!)
It’s a blog of mine – and I’ve added links to his comments in the update section of my blog. So just use this link, then scroll down to “update” and you can read his comments. He has more, but you’ll be taken to the first two long comments, where he provides that info. I found it so persuasive, and he’s someone I’ve known via the internet for a few years now, that I literally changed the title of the post. So again, scroll to the “update” and follow the links there.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme…..ur-con.php
In case anybody returns here….
I’ve updated my post again to reflect Feingold’s letter. Events are moving so fast I can hardly keep up here! LOL!