« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Sleep Expert "Surprised And Saddened" To Find Research Twisted In Torture Memo
A British professor whose research on sleep was cited in one of the just-released Bush administration torture memos has expressed outrage that his work was used to justify extreme sleep deprivation, including keeping subjects awake for up to 11 days.
In an interview with TPMmuckraker, James Horne, a leading authority in the field of sleep research, said he was "surprised and saddened" to see Bush officials "misrepresent" his research to argue that such sleep deprivation does not cause serious harm to its subjects.
In one of the Office of Legal Counsel memos released yesterday, authored in May 2005, DOJ official Steven Bradbury wrote:
We understand from OMS, and from our review of the literature on the physiology of sleep, that even very extended sleep deprivation does not cause physical pain, let alone severe physical pain. "The longest studies of sleep deprivation in humans ... involved volunteers [who] were deprived of sleep for 8-11 days ... Surprisingly little seemed to go wrong with the subjects physically. The main effects lay with sleepiness and impaired brain functioning, but even these were no great cause for concern." James Horne, Why We Sleep: The Functions Of Sleep in Humans and Other Mammals 23-24 (1988).
Bradbury continues, quoting Horne again:
We note that there are important differences between sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique used by the CIA and the controlled experiments documented in the literature. The subjects of the experiments were free to move about and engage in normal activities and often led a "tranquil existence" with "plenty of time for relaxation" ... whereas a detainee in CIA custody would be shackled and prevented from moving freely. Moreover, the subjects in the experiments often increased their food consumption during periods of extended sleep loss ... whereas the detainee undergoing interrogation may be placed on a reduced-calorie diet, as discussed above. Nevertheless, we understand that experts who have studied sleep deprivation have concluded that "the most plausible reason for the uneventful physical findings with these human beings is that ... sleep loss is not particularly harmful."
Informed by TPMmuckraker that his work had been put to this use, Horne -- who heads the Sleep Research Centre, at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, U.K. -- was indignant. He explained the crucial difference between his controlled experiments, in which subjects were under no additional stress, and the CIA's use of sleep deprivation on interrogation subjects.
"As soon as you add in any other stress, any other psychological stress, then the sleep deprivation feeds on that, and the two compound each other to make things far worse. I made that very, very clear," he said. "And there's been a lot of research by others since then to show that this is the case."
As for whether such stress could be considered "harmful," Horne was unequivocal. "I thought it was totally inappropriate to cite my book as being evidence that you can do this and there's not much harm. With additional stress, these people are suffering. It's obviously traumatic," he said. "I just find it absurd."
Further, Horne continued, sleep-deprived subjects become so confused that they're highly unlikely to offer useful intelligence. "I don't understand what you're going to get out of it," he said. "You can no longer think rationally, you just become more of an automaton ... These people will just be spewing nonsense anyway. It's pointless!"
In sum, said Horne, he feels "saddened" that the memo's author "didn't fully interpret what I actually wrote." The memo "distorts what I really meant, and I never meant for it to be, in any way, indicative that you could start torturing people in this way. That was not the intention at all."
Bradbury did not respond to an email from TPMmuckraker requesting comment.
Josh
Zachary
Of course the memo's author had no intention of "interpreting"; rather the memo's author only ever intended to search out research that "supported", however weakly, the Bush administration's foregone decision to use sleep deprivation as an "enhanced interrrogation technique".
April 17, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Republican distorting scientific research for political purposes? Imagine that.
April 17, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this time, their habit of distorting research amounts to a war crime, not just the usual false talking point.
April 17, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constitutional Law Professor and U.S. President Barack Obama feels that "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past," so he will not prosecute American government officials who tortured.
'Cuz, you know, it's not as if ignoring history will doom us to repeat it, or anything.
Obama: "[We] assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
Any spook who doesn't know that s/he should resign rather than follow the illegal, immoral, counter-productive, and disgusting 'legal advice' from a corrupt and heinous Bush DOJ should be prosecuted for stupidity if nothing else.
Holder: "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department."
'If the Gestapo sanctioned it in advance, it would be unfair to prosecute dedicated Nazis working to protect the Reich.' That defense worked at Nuremberg, why not here? (P.S. When the issue is government officials 'just obeying orders' to commit war crimes, then Godwin's Law is moot.)
Leon Panetta: "The CIA would provide legal counsel for any CIA employee who is subjected to an investigation relating to previously authorized policies."
'Cuz the fine-print of "Change We Believe In" specifies that change is limited to those issues that right-wing, nationalistic, flag-draping, bible-thumping, quasi-fascistic, elite-banking, and other conservative elements of U.S. society approve of. Didn't you read it?
April 18, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a note on your writing style: It's really hard to see where you are adding your own blurbs verses your quotes. At a glance, it's unorganized/confusing and a lot of potential readers will tend to skip confusing stuff instantly.
Also, "quasi-fascistic": Do you think the average person will know what you are talking about? When you use strung out esoteric terms, odds are that the only person who knows what you really meant is you.
Ok, sorry, it's late Saturday night and I have to stay awake and I'm on a grammar gripe.
April 19, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had no problem following her quotes and her comments. Maybe your computer just isn't set up to recognize bold vs. regular font. And I also had no problem deciphering the term "quasi-fascistic." Most people understand what "fascism" is and what "quasi" means.
April 19, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
April 19, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fixing the facts around the policy. Now, where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, The Downing Street minutes. And, this differs from 'the end justifies the means' how?
April 17, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bradbury did not respond to an email from TPMmuckraker requesting comment."
Of course he didn't, nor will Bybee, Yoo, Addington (especially not this one- he of the pompous, cold hearted expediency) et al. They're biding their time, waiting for it all to blow over and be forgotten. And if all of us don't raise a hellava noise and monumental stink that reaches the WH portico, blown over and forgotten it will be.
April 17, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgotten only until the Republicans get back in power. Then it will come back with a vengance when these criminals are again given positions of power in Washington. See the Nixon era Iran-Contra criminals who came back under GWB.
.
April 20, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
George Will had to be corrected by the scientists whose data he misused, and this scientist is now making clear that his research was abused. Tip of the iceberg for the anti-science policies of the Bushies.
But the people I respect the least are those few researchers who went along with the Bush administration. About 1 1/2 years ago, a well-known private non-profit research organization (usually somewhat liberal) in D.C. did some Bush-ordered very biased analysis on health coverage. By the rules of their long-term contract with the federal government (which predates the Bush admin), they had to do the analysis, but they went beyond that, proudly putting their names on the report and arguing that it was legitimate. Every researcher in the field, including other researchers in their own organization, blasted them for this. I was in the audience at a meeting where one speaker from their organization spent almost his whole talk taking apart their crappy analysis and criticizing the ethics and competence of the author of the report. She was on the same panel and it was an absolute joy to behold her getting more and more furious.
April 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot to congratulate you, Zach, on bringing this to the researcher's attention. Well done!
April 17, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now when will MSN steal the story? (actually in this case, I wish they would steal it)
April 19, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have news for Yoo, Bybee, et al., and it's not news they're going to like.
These "actions" are torture if they are equivalent to the pain of organ failure? Well, I've HAD organ failure. My kidneys failed and I started dialysis the day of Bush the Lesser's second inauguration.
Kidney failure doesn't hurt all that much. You get fatigued, and nauseated, but generally not much pain in the kidneys.
So I'd say they've just opened up a big hole in their so-called logic. ANY stress position will, after just 15 minutes or so, cause MORE pain that organ failure.
April 17, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree completely on all points with you, Cal Gal. My mother had kidney failure- sorry you do too. Those hrs. in the dialysis chair were tedious at the best for her, pretty lousy at the worst.
These jerkoffs parsed everything without any thought but to please the BushCo higher ups. Some were the higher ups. This crap wouldn't stand up to a moderately stiff cross in any court of law, here or elsewhere. And will they ever be called to account?
May you never rest easily, you bastards. Truth will out.
April 17, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way you think!
April 17, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think how criminally sick someone has to be to do all those literature searches on potential and actual torture techniques to cherrypick quotes saying they're not that bad. You have to wonder a little whether Bybee et al got off on reading this stuff.
April 17, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of Ike's comment about the scientists who waste their minds and lives developing weapons.
A friend of mine has dedicated his life to defending death row inmates. Unfortunately, he will reach retirement age before we stop the death sentence.
April 18, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush gang;
The suspected terrorist did not die from the hanging, he died from a broken neck, so we feel completely exonerated.
April 17, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What strikes me is the emphasis in the memo on physical pain and physical harm as being the only important considerations. As far as I am concerned, infliction of psychological pain and psychological harm is a far more serious form of torture.
According to sleep-deprivation.com, typical effects of sleep deprivation (they don't specify the depth and duration) include depression, heart disease, hypertension, and an impaired immune system. Not to mention that prolonged sleep deprivation has been known to be fatal to lab rats. Bradbury et al. weren't concerned about this? They weren't concerned that sleep-deprived individuals suffer memory impairment and even hallucinations? How can you get any kind of reliable information under such conditions? Or were they less interested in reliable information than in simply getting "confirmation" for whatever "facts" and "intelligence" were needed to be fixed around an already-decided policy?
April 17, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
They really weren't interested in getting information. The techniques they used were borrowed from the North Koreans for use in getting people to give false testimony for propaganda purposes, not for intelligence collection.
April 19, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the day (early 70's), I was a speed freak and can honestly say I went without sleep for 14 days. During those periods I could not accurately report on events and I don't think there was any permanent damage.
During one period, I ran over Marshall Dillon while driving down Highway 101 here in San Diego. That is the kind of information you would get from someone being awake for that long.
April 17, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, perhaps impeachment shouldn't have been off the table. Democrats will forever be shamed by their failure to do their constitutional duty and impeach that miserable moral pervert. I hope they are learning their lesson now. (Fat chance.)
April 17, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you can still impeach someone after they've left office.
"Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension)."--from the ever-accurate Wikipedia
So it's not too late! Strip Bush of his emoluments!
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY!
April 18, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can impeach Supreme Court Justices too!
Is Secret Service protection an emolument?
Ok, just take his retirement pay.
April 18, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If all of these "techniques" weren't torture, then what was the point of doing them? It's a circular argument -- "hey, there's nothing wrong with doing these things, they don't hurt anybody." Okay, then why do them? What does it get you?
Revenge, that's what it gets you. Revenge for 9/11, taken on the most convenient target.
The people who authorized these "techniques" didn't think they needed to be justified; they thought they were inherently good -- not because of the information that might be extracted, but because bad people should be treated badly, no matter what the objective, practical result. It's the same as the "tough on crime" crowd. They don't care what is most effective or efficient, or what makes the public safer -- all they care about is not being soft on the bad guys. Cruelty is a positive good.
April 18, 2009 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't want to change the subject but: maybe it's time to look at who owns the media, how the modern media was developed and who pofits by keeping everyone stupid.
Yes, you have to go back to late 40's but we are living the results.
Remember a perfect family (or 2-3-4 examples, even semi-imperfect too), perfect car (except maybe you know and corviar)with perfect teeth and white white wash and clean hands and white bright lightbulbs and toasters and irons and and and .....who owns the companies that developed tv aa a sales tool and manipulator?
Even today why do these mi companies want all digi even if gov pays?? (meaning mi will pay for your new digi implant to be sure you get it. At keast until they bill you one way or the other)
Is it that hard to figure why we have to fight off the disease?
Man! Someone said long time ago this environment slaps the glee out of a kid before they know glee is happy.... then scares them to death thinking glee may be insanity.
And you know everyone wants some glee!
Remeber glee? Yeah, it's there but now it's scary if you got glee man. "How can you have glee when the sky in falling?" "Watch out for those people with glee!"
Take it from there gang!
Remeber: the worker bees have to be tuned to the same buzz.Can you dig it?
Good ol sm had it back in 68: "somebody give me a cheezeburger!" Yep, that sould do it.....
April 18, 2009 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
These people were just spewing nonsense from the outset. After all, how can you torture the location of phantom WMD's out of anyone? And if you want info on 9-11 wouldn't it be more appropriate to torture Saudi's, since it was them and their kin that perpetrated 9-11?
They tortured the testicles of children of parents they were pressing for this type of information.
Maybe it's not a crime to torture kids? I haven't seen or read the 'justification' on that one yet so I guess I should hold my tongue. Fuck that, put the bastards on trial and let them try to explain it in a court of law.
Enjoy.
April 18, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What gets me is WHY Obama thinks he even has the authority or power to obstruct the prosecution of ALL these scumbags...Oh, that's right...I get it (slipped my mind for a few a few fleeting seconds)...He really does want to be, or at least think he's... KING!! Does that make Eric Holder the court JESTER as well as one of the ENABLERS?
Jonathen Turley is right on with the following comments taken from his blog:
United Nations Official Strongly Suggests That Obama Is In Violation International Law in Refusing to Investigate War Crimes
Published 1, April 19, 2009 Constitutional Law , International , Justice , Lawyering , Politics , Society
U.N. special rapporteur Manfred Nowak has gone public with a stinging indictment of President Barack Obama’s failure to investigate and prosecute officials for the American torture program, a clear war crime under existing treaties. Obama is in open violation of international law due to his failure to uphold the clear legal and moral obligations of this country.
For many months, I have been received a great deal of flak over this very same point (here and here: that Obama is in clear violation of international law. Nowak has now added a much more significant voice to the call for investigation and prosecution: “The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court.”
Former Bush officials, the Red Cross, the vast majority of legal experts, and numerous NGOs have confirmed these interrogations as premeditated torture. Obama and Holder have both declared waterboarding to be torture. The failure to simply appoint an independent investigator and allow the law to be enforced without concern for politics or passions. It is obvious that Obama does not want to allow an investigation that would likely lead to an indictment of Bush officials and probably Bush himself. If Obama wants to excuse war crimes, he can take the personal responsibility and pardon Bush and these officials — tying his own legacy to the commission of torture. However, his blocking of an investigation is an international outrage and puts us into the same category as countries like Serbia. Obama has the authority to pardon crimes, not obstruct efforts to investigate crimes for political purposes. This may not be politically advantageous for Obama, but these treaties do not exist for his comfort or advantage. We made a pledge to the world that we would aggressively pursue any war criminals — even if they happened to be made in the America.
April 19, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a thought: does obamarama know what he stepped in? ....yet?
Sure as feaking - - - - hope he knows this ain't chi town.
April 19, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still wholeheartedly believe my ancestors fought and died for the PRINCIPLES of this nation, not the leaders themselves. I would also hope they would have absolutely decline to support ANYONE who decided torture was allowed... or protected.
As a veteran myself (Vietnam), I am incensed that anyone who is Commander in Chief of the armed forces would even CONSIDER protecting anyone who has used war, terrorism, or ANY action as an excuse to torture another human being. It is the most heinous act a person can do, and for someone supposedly representing this nation and the brave people who have over the last couple of centuries have given their lives to protect and defend this "WAY OF LIFE"... for them to say they will not defend this SAME quality, but rather PROTECT those who torture FOR ANY REASON and then excuse themselves because they were told it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO is inexcusable.
DECENT human beings do NOT act and behave this way. There are certain things which are supposed to differentiate human beings from lower life forms and I believe this is one of them.
If the Democrats AND Republican mobsters can believe protecting CIA operatives is more important than protecting our basic moral and civilized beliefs, NEITHER PARTY blongs anywhere near any source of power, and ANYONR STILL voting for ANY of them, in my opinion, have learned nothing from history and cares little for those decent people who have led us this far...
Sorry for the tirade, but I, as a disabled veteran do not enjoy the idea that the result of my fighting for this country has been to allow and protect murderers and torturers... and those who protect them. If I wanted that, I would have gone and fought for our enemies...
April 19, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink