Halaman

Sabtu, 13 Oktober 2012

Good Cop Bad Cop

Good cop/bad cop, known in British military circles as Mutt and Jeff (from an American newspaper comic strip of that name) and also called joint questioning and friend and foe,[1] is a psychological tactic used for interrogation.
'Good cop/bad cop' tactics involves a team of two interrogators who take apparently opposing approaches to the subject. The interrogators may interview the subject alternately or may confront the subject at the same time.
The 'bad cop' takes an aggressive, negative stance towards the subject, making blatant accusations, derogatory comments, threats, and in general creating antipathy between the subject and himself. This sets the stage for the 'good cop' to act sympathetically: appearing supportive, understanding, in general showing sympathy for the subject. The good cop will also defend the subject from the bad cop. The subject may feel he can cooperate with the good cop out of trust or fear of the bad cop. He may then seek protection by and trust the good cop and provide the information the interrogators are seeking.
Although the technique is especially useful against subjects who are young, frightened, or naïve, it may still cause an instinctive psychological response in those who are familiar with it. However, as they are aware of the attempted manipulation, they may just close-down entirely or attempt to disrupt the procedure. Experienced interrogators assess the subject's level of intelligence and experience with the technique prior to its application.[citation needed]
There are various countermeasures available that can disrupt the tactic or cause it to backfire:[original research?]
  • An experienced subject may choose to deliberately bait the 'bad cop' with provocative behavior of his own short of violent provocation (such as derogatory remarks about the bad cop or his family, racial, ethnic and gender slurs if applicable, offensive gestures), hoping that the 'bad cop' will lose self-control and react violently towards the subject. Most liberal democracies expect professionalism from law enforcement personnel, so any physical violence towards a subject during interrogation in the absence of bona fide physical provocation could compromise the prosecution's case or lead to civil or criminal legal consequences for the interrogators.[citation needed]
  • Severe verbal abuse or otherwise insulting behavior targeted at the 'good cop' has also proven highly disruptive on occasion.[citation needed]
The good cop/bad cop routine is a common dramatic technique in cinema and television, where the bad cop often goes beyond the boundary of legal behavior.

How to being Interrogator

in interrogation section they've Reid Technique. what is it Reid Technique? check it out.


The Reid technique is a method of questioning subjects and assessing their credibility. The technique consists of an accusatory interview combining both investigative and behavior-provoking questions. If the investigative information indicates that the subject committed the crime in question, the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation are utilized to persuade the subject to tell the truth about what they did.
The Reid technique involves three different components — factual analysis, interviewing, and interrogation. While each of these are separate and distinct procedures, they are interrelated in the sense that each is intended to serve to help eliminate innocent suspects during an investigation, thereby presumably allowing the investigator to focus upon the person that the investigator feels is most likely to be guilty. Interrogating that individual then becomes foremost in the effort to learn what may be the truth. Supporters argue the Reid technique is useful in extracting information from otherwise unwilling suspects, while critics have charged the technique can elicit false confessions from innocent persons, especially children.
The term "Reid Technique" is a registered trademark of the firm John E. Reid and Associates, which offers training courses in the method they have devised. The technique is widely used by law-enforcement agencies in world today.

"Interrogation," on the other hand, is an accusatory process — accusatory only in the sense that the investigator tells the suspect that there is no doubt as to his guilt. The interrogation is in the form of a monologue presented by the investigator, rather than a question and answer format.
The actual demeanor of the investigator during the course of an interrogation is ideally understanding, patient, and non-demeaning. His or her goal is to make the suspect progressively more and more comfortable with acknowledging the presumed truth about what they are alleged to have done. This is accomplished by the investigators' first imagining and then offering the subject various psychological constructs as justification for their behavior.
The first admission of guilt is usually obtained by asking the alternative question "Did you plan this out or did it just happen on the spur of the moment?" This technique uses language that contains the unspoken, implicit assumption of guilt. A famous version of this trick is, "Ma'am, have you stopped embezzling money from the bank yet?" The person under interrogation must catch the hidden assumption and contest it to avoid the trap. Otherwise, once the subject confesses to the proposed scenario, then active persuasion stops and the interrogator attempts to develop from the subject corroborating information that can be used to shore up the credibility of the confession. Critics regard this strategy as hazardous, arguing that it is subject to confirmation bias (likely to reinforce inaccurate beliefs or assumptions) and may lead to prematurely narrowing an investigation.[citation needed]

[edit] Nine steps of interrogation

The Reid technique's nine steps of interrogation are:[1]
  • Step 1 - Direct Confrontation. Lead the suspect to understand that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.
  • Step 2 - Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.
  • Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’[...]the more difficult it is to get a confession."
  • Step 4 - At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.
  • Step 5 - Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.
  • Step 6 - The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
  • Step 7 - Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.
  • Step 8 - Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.
  • Step 9 - Document the suspect's admission and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written).

Technique Interrogation 6: Mutilation & Maiming (Restricted )

Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death.
Knocking out a girl's tooth. Kaitish tribe in Australia, 1912
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death.

Maiming, or mutilation which involves the loss of, or incapacity to use, a bodily member, is and has been practised by many societies with various cultural and religious significances, and is also a customary form of physical punishment, especially applied on the principle of an eye for an eye.
The Araucanian warrior Galvarino suffered this punishment as a prisoner during the Spanish conquest of Chile.
In law, maiming is a criminal offence; the old law term for a special case of maiming of persons was mayhem, an Anglo-French variant form of the word.
Maiming of animals by others than their owners is a particular form of the offence generally grouped as malicious damage. For the purpose of the law as to this offence animals are divided into cattle, which includes horses, pigs and asses, and other animals which are either subjects of larceny at common law or are usually kept in confinement or for domestic purposes.
In Britain under the Malicious Damage Act 1861 the punishment for maiming of cattle was three to fourteen years penal servitude; malicious injury to other animals is a misdemeanour punishable on summary conviction. For a second offence the penalty is imprisonment with hard labor for over twelve months. Maiming of animals by their owner falls under the Cruelty to Animals Acts.


In times when even judicial physical punishment was still commonly allowed to cause not only intense pain and public humiliation during the administration but also to inflict permanent physical damage, or even deliberately intended to mark the criminal for life by docking or branding, one of the common anatomical target areas not normally under permanent cover of clothing (so particularly merciless in the long term) were the ears.
Fredegund ordering the mutilation of Olericus
In England, for example, various pamphleteers attacking the religious views of the Anglican episcopacy under William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had their ears cut off for those writings: in 1630 Dr. Alexander Leighton and in 1637 still other Puritans, John Bastwick, Henry Burton and William Prynne.
In Scotland one of the Covenanters, James Gavin of Douglas, Lanarkshire, had his ears cut off for refusing to renounce his religious faith. In Japan, Gonsalo Garcia and his companions were similarly treated.
Notably in various jurisdictions of colonial British North America even relatively minor crimes, such as hog stealing, were punishable by having one's ears nailed to the pillory and slit loose, or even cropped, a counterfeiter would be branded on top (for that crime, considered lèse majesté, the older mirror punishment was boiling in oil).
Independence did not render American justice any less bloody. For example in the future state of Tennessee, an example of harsh 'frontier law' under the 1780 Cumberland Compact took place in 1793 when Judge John McNairy sentenced Nashville's first horse thief, John McKain, Jr., to be fastened to a wooden stock one hour for 39 lashes, and have his ears cut off and cheeks branded with the letters "H" and "T".
Tongue being cut is also a form of mutilation as this leads to bleeding to death in most cases with choking in the lungs. [7]
In Sharia law, mutilation is, in certain cases, used as a punishment for crimes. For example, thieves may be punished by having the right hand amputated.
Another example from a non-western culture is that of Nebahne Yohannes, an unsuccessful claimant to the Ethiopian imperial throne who had his ears and nose cut off, yet was then freed. This form of mutilation against unsuccessful claimants to thrones has been in use in middle-eastern regions for thousands of years. To qualify as a king, formerly, one had to exemplify perfection. Obvious physical deformities such as missing noses, ears, or lips, are thereby sufficient disqualifications. The victim in these cases is typically freed alive to act (a) as an example to others, and (b) as no longer a threat.

Technique Interrogation 5: Whipping (Flagellum)

Flagellation or flogging is the act of methodically beating or whipping (Latin flagellum, "whip") the human body. Specialised implements for it include rods, switches, the cat o' nine tails and the sjambok. Typically, flogging is imposed on an unwilling subject as a punishment; however, it can also be submitted to willingly, or performed on oneself, in religious or sadomasochistic contexts.
In some circumstances the word "flogging" is used loosely to include any sort of corporal punishment, including birching and caning. However, in British legal terminology, a distinction was drawn (and still is, in one or two colonial territories) between "flogging" (with a cat-o'-nine-tails) and "whipping" (formerly with a whip, but since the early 19th century with a birch). In Britain these were both abolished in 1948.

Flogging was a common disciplinary measure in the British navy that became associated with a seaman's manly disregard for pain. Aboard ships, knittles or the cat o' nine tails was used for severe formal punishment, while a "rope's end" or "starter" was used to administer informal, on-the-spot discipline.
Flagellation probably originated in the Near East but then spread throughout the ancient world. In Sparta, young men were flogged as a test of their masculinity. Jewish law limited flagellation to forty strokes, and in practice delivered thirty-nine, so as to avoid any possibility of breaking this law due to a miscount. Additionally they would have a doctor monitor the punishment, who would stop it if it became too much for the person to bear safely.
In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, and in this context is sometimes referred to as scourging. Whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used. Such a device could easily cause disfigurement and serious trauma, such as ripping pieces of flesh from the body or loss of an eye. In addition to causing severe pain, the victim would approach a state of hypovolemic shock due to loss of blood.
The Romans reserved this treatment for non-citizens, as stated in the lex Porcia and lex Sempronia, dating from 195 and 123 BCE. The poet Horace refers to the horribile flagellum (horrible whip) in his Satires. Typically, the one to be punished was stripped naked and bound to a low pillar so that he could bend over it, or chained to an upright pillar so as to be stretched out. Two lictors (some reports indicate scourgings with four or six lictors) alternated blows from the bare shoulders down the body to the soles of the feet. There was no limit to the number of blows inflicted - this was left to the lictors to decide, though they were normally not supposed to kill the victim. Nonetheless, Livy, Suetonius and Josephus report cases of flagellation where victims died while still bound to the post. Flagellation was referred to as "half death" by some authors and apparently, many victims died shortly thereafter. Cicero reports in In Verrem, "pro mortuo sublatus brevi postea mortuus" ("taken away for a dead man, shortly thereafter he was dead"). In some cases the victim was turned over to allow flagellation on the chest, though this proceeded with more caution, as the possibility of inflicting a fatal blow was much greater.
In the reign of Henry VIII was passed (1530) the famous Whipping Act, directing vagrants to be carried to some market town or other place "and there tied to the end of a cart naked and beaten with whips throughout such market town till the body shall be bloody".[1]
Whipping was used during the French Revolution. On 31 May 1793, the Jacobin women seized a revolutionary leader, Anne Josephe Theroigne de Mericourt, stripped her naked, and flogged her on the bare bottom in the public garden of the Tuileries. After this humiliation, she refused to wear any clothes, in memory of the outrage she had suffered.[2] She went mad and ended her days in an asylum after the public whipping.
Punishment with a Great Knout. Russia, 18th century.
Knouts were used in Russia for flogging as formal corporal punishment of criminals and political offenders. A sentence of 100 or 120 lashes was equivalent to a death sentence. Whipping was also a common punishment for Russian serfs.[3]

[edit] Use against slaves

A whipped slave, Baton Rouge, 1863. The original caption reads: "Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer. The very words of poor Peter, taken as he sat for his picture." The pattern of scarring seen here is highly suggestive of keloid formation.
Whipping has been used as a form of discipline against slaves. It was frequently carried out during the period of slavery in the United States, by owners of slaves and their employees. The power was also given to slave "patrollers," mostly poor whites, who had among their powers the ability to whip any slave who violated the slave codes.

[edit] Present-day official flogging

No longer used in most Western countries, flogging or whipping is still a common punishment in some parts of the world, particularly in many former British territories and in Islamic countries under shariah law. Medically supervised caning is routinely ordered by the courts as a penalty for some categories of crime in Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and elsewhere.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, European armies administered floggings to common soldiers who committed breaches of the military code. During the American Revolutionary War, the American Congress raised the legal limit on lashes from 39 to 100 for soldiers who were convicted by courts-martial.[4] Generally, officers were not flogged. However, in 1745, a cashiered British officer could have his sword broken over his head, among other indignities inflicted on him.[5]
In the Napoleonic Wars, the maximum number of lashes that could be inflicted on soldiers in the British Army reached 1,200. This many lashes could permanently disable or kill a man. Oman, historian of the Peninsular War, noted that the maximum sentence was inflicted "nine or ten times by general court-martial during the whole six years of the war" and that 1,000 lashes were administered about 50 times.[6] Other sentences were for 900, 700, 500 and 300 lashes. One soldier was sentenced to 700 lashes for stealing a beehive.[7] Another man was let off after only 175 of 400 lashes, but spent three weeks in the hospital.[8] Later in the war, the more draconian punishments were abandoned and the offenders shipped to New South Wales instead, where more whippings often awaited them. (See Australian penal colonies section.) Oman later wrote:
If anything was calculated to brutalize an army it was the wicked cruelty of the British military punishment code, which Wellington to the end of his life supported. There is plenty of authority for the fact that the man who had once received his 500 lashes for a fault which was small, or which involved no moral guilt, was often turned thereby from a good soldier into a bad soldier, by losing his self-respect and having his sense of justice seared out. Good officers knew this well enough, and did their best to avoid the cat-of-nine-tails, and to try more rational means—more often than not with success.[9]
Meanwhile, during the French Revolutionary Wars the French Army stopped floggings altogether. The King's German Legion (KGL), which were German units in British pay, did not flog. In one case, a British soldier on detached duty with the KGL was sentenced to be flogged, but the German commander refused to carry out the punishment. When the British 73rd Foot flogged a man in occupied France in 1814, disgusted French citizens protested against it.[10]
At the urging of New Hampshire Senator John P. Hale, the United States "Congress banned flogging on all U.S. ships in September 1850."[11] Hale was inspired by Herman Melville's "vivid description of flogging, a brutal staple of 19th century naval discipline" in Melville's "novelized memoir" White Jacket[11]. Melville also included a vivid depiction of flogging, and the circumstances surrounding it, in his more famous work, Moby-Dick.
Military flogging was abolished in the United States Army on 5 August 1861.[12]
One of few countries where corporal punishment is still officially used in the armed forces is Singapore, where military legislation provides that errant soldiers can be sentenced by court-martial to strokes of the cane.

[edit] Australian penal colonies

Once common in the British Army and British Royal Navy as a means of discipline, flagellation also featured prominently in the British penal colonies in early colonial Australia. Given that convicts in Australia were already "imprisoned", punishments for offenses committed in the colonies could not usually result in imprisonment and thus usually consisted of corporal punishment such as hard labour or flagellation. Unlike Roman times, British law explicitly forbade the combination of corporal and capital punishment; thus, a convict was either flogged or hanged but never both.
Flagellation took place either with a single whip or, more notoriously, with the cat o' nine tails. Typically, the offender's upper half was bared and he was suspended by the wrists beneath a tripod of wooden beams (known as 'the triangle'). In many cases, the offender's feet barely touched ground, which helped to stretch the skin taut and increase the damage inflicted by the whip. It also centered the offender's weight in his shoulders, further ensuring a painful experience.
With the prisoner thus stripped and bound, either one or two floggers administered the prescribed number of strokes, or "lashes," to the victim's back. During the flogging, a doctor or other medical worker was consulted at regular intervals as to the condition of the prisoner. In many cases, however, the physician merely observed the offender to determine whether he was conscious. If the prisoner passed out, the physician would order a halt until the prisoner was revived, and then the whipping would continue.
Female convicts were also subject to flogging as punishment, both on the convict ships and in the penal colonies. Although they were generally given fewer lashes than males (usually limited to 40 in each flogging), there was no other difference between the manner in which males and females were flogged.
Floggings of both male and female convicts were public, administered before the whole colony's company, assembled especially for the purpose. In addition to the infliction of pain, one of the principal purposes of the flogging was to humiliate the offender in front of his mates and to demonstrate, in a forceful way, that he had been required to submit to authority.
(See also: History of Australia).

[edit] Association with religion

Flagellants. From a fifteenth century woodcut.

[edit] Judaism

According to the Torah and Rabbinic law lashes may be given for offenses that do not merit capital punishment, and may not exceed 40. However in the absence of a Sanhedrin, corporal punishment is not practiced in Jewish law. Halakha specifies the lashes must be given in sets of three, so the total number cannot exceed 39. Also, the person whipped is first judged whether they can withstand the punishment, if not, the number of whips is decreased.

[edit] Pre-Christianity

During the Ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia young men ran through the streets with thongs cut from the hide of goats which had just been sacrificed, and women who wished to conceive put themselves in their way to receive blows, apparently mostly on the hands.[citation needed] The eunuch priests of the goddess Cybele, the galli, flogged themselves until they bled during the annual festival called Dies sanguinis. Greco-Roman mystery religions also sometimes involved ritual flagellation, as famously depicted in the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii, apparently showing initiation into the Dionysian Mysteries

Technique Interrogation 4: Water Torture

A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, and more recently "Spanish water torture", to differentiate it from the better known Chinese water torture, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used infrequently during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning".[87] William Schweiker claims that the use of water as a form of torture also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors.[88]

Flemish Inquisition

In Joos de Damhouder's Praxis rerum criminalium (1554), a manual on the practice of criminal law, the chapter on torture and interrogation is illustrated with a woodcut of waterboarding, which it describes in detail.[89][90] The Martyr's Mirror depicts one incident of waterboarding used against the early Mennonites thus:[91]
And as they did still not obtain anything from me, to the implication of my neighbor, Master Hans took water (during the entire time a cloth had lain on my face), and holding my nose shut with one hand, began to pour water on my abdomen and thence all over my breast, and into my mouth; even as one should drink when he is very thirsty. I think that the can from which he poured out -- the water held about three pints. And when I was at the end of my breath, and wanted to fetch such, I drew the water all into my body, whereupon I suffered such distress, that it would be impossible for me to relate or describe it; but the Lord be forever praised: He kept my lips. And when they could still not obtain anything from me, they caused the cord which was on my thigh to be loosed and applied to a fresh place, and wound it much tighter than before, so that I thought he would kill me, and began to shake and tremble greatly. He then proceeded to pour water into me again, so that I think he emptied four such cans, and my body became so full of it, that twice it came out again at the throat. And thus I became so weak. that I fainted; for, when I recovered from my swoon, I found myself alone with Master Hans and Daniel de Keyser. And Master Hans was so busily engaged in loosing all my cords, that it seemed to me that they were concerned over me. But the Lord in a large degree took away my pain every time; whenever it became so severe that I thought it was impossible to bear it, my members became as dead. Eternal praise, thanks, honor, and glory be to the Lord; for when it was over I thought that, by the help of the Lord, I had fought a good fight.

The Water Torture—Facsimile of a woodcut in J. Damhoudère's Praxis Rerum Criminalium, Antwerp, 1556.

Technique Interrogation 3: Waterboarding

Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, thus causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death.[1] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[2] The term water board torture appears in press reports as early as 1976.[3] Although a variety of specific techniques are used in waterboarding, the captive's face is usually covered with cloth or some other thin material, and the subject is immobilized on his/her back. Water is then poured onto the face over the breathing passages, causing an almost immediate gag reflex and creating the sensation that the captive is drowning.[4][5][6]
In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Department of Justice had authorized the procedure,[7][8] even though the United States government hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US prisoners of war in World War II.[9] The CIA confirms using waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, in 2002 and 2003.[10][11] During the presidency of George W. Bush, U.S. government officials at various times said they did not believe waterboarding to be a form of torture.[12][13][14][15] To justify its use of waterboarding, the Bush administration issued classified legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew.[16][17][18] In January 2009, President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g. SERE) purposes.[19][20]

Waterboarding in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime. Painting by former prison inmate Vann Nath at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum

Technique Interrogation 2: Stress Position

A stress position, also known as a submission position, places the human body in such a way that a great amount of weight is placed on just one or two muscles. For example, a subject may be forced to stand on the balls of his feet, then squat so that his thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates an intense amount of pressure on the legs, leading first to pain and then muscle failure.
Forcing prisoners to adopt such positions is a method of ill-treatment used for extracting information or as a punishment, amounting to torture.

A Viet Cong prisoner captured in 1967 by the U.S Army awaits interrogation. He has been placed in a stress position by tying a board between his arms.

Technique Interrogation 1: Medical Torture

Medical torture (also known as a medical interrogation) describes the involvement and sometimes active participation of medical professionals in acts of torture, either to judge what victims can endure, to apply treatments which will enhance torture, or as torturers in their own right. Medical torture may involve the use of their expert medical knowledge to facilitate interrogation or corporal punishment, in the conduct of torturous human experimentation or in providing professional medical sanction and approval for the torture of prisoners. The term also covers torturous scientific (or pseudo-scientific) experimentation upon unwilling human subjects.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Medical ethics and international law

It is generally accepted that medical torture fundamentally violates medical ethics, which all medical practitioners are expected to adhere to.
  • The Hippocratic Oath makes explicit statements against deliberate harm not in the patient's best interests. These statements are often translated as "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement" and "to never deliberately do harm to anyone, for anyone else's interest." (Note: these statements are formulations of the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.)
  • In response to the Nazi human experimentation on prisoners, which were declared at the Nuremberg Trials to be "crimes against humanity", the World Medical Association developed the Declaration of Geneva to supplant the dated Hippocratic Oath. The Declaration of Geneva requires medical practitioners to state "[I, the medical practitioner] will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity".
  • The Nuremberg Trials also led to the emergence of the Nuremberg code which explicitly outlines the boundaries of acceptable medical experimentation.
  • Additionally in response to the Nazi atrocities, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 outright prohibits the torture of prisoners of war and other protected non-combatants.
  • The World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo (1975) [1] makes a number of specific statements against torture, including "The doctor shall not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture".
  • Also the UN Convention Against Torture, which applies not only to medical staff, prohibits the use of torture under any circumstance. The text explicitly states there is no exception to this treaty under which torture is allowed.
  • The UN Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UN.1982) applies specifically to medical and other health workers but it has no implementation mechanism to ensure enforcement. It is up to state, provincial, and national bodies to enforce the standards in the document.
  • The development of command responsibility established criminal liability for all people, including physicians, involved in crimes against humanity.
There remain gaps in regulation relating to medical torture in many countries:
  • Government sponsored torture and organized violence, with the complicity and or participation of health personnel, is internationally prohibited yet these violations occur with impunity in a significant amount of cases. An example of this impunity is found in the Abu Ghraib prison torture and prisoner scandal as well as documented by Amnesty International.
  • A higher standard of behaviour is expected of health professionals yet the UN Principles of Medical Ethics are not enforceable when governments are complicit in violations. This higher standard is reflected in the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence (above all do no harm), autonomy, justice, dignity and informed consent and these aren’t covered comprehensively by the UN Convention Against Torture.

[edit] Asserted instances

  • Between 1937 and 1945, Japanese medical personnel who were part of Unit 731 participated in the torture killings of as many as 10,000 Chinese, Russian, American and other prisoners as well as Allied POWs during the second Sino-Japanese War.[2]
  • During World War II, Unit 731 of the Japanese Imperial Army tried out various biological weapons on Chinese subjects.
  • During World War II, the Nazi regime in Germany conducted human medical experimentation on large numbers of people held in its concentration camps. In particular, Josef Mengele's experiments on prisoners at Auschwitz earned him the nicknames "the Angel of Death" and "Dr. Death".
  • Japanese surgeons also performed vivisection and other medical experiments to torture American prisoners of war in several islands of the Pacific. [3] [4]
  • Between 1970 and 1971, mentally disorienting interrogation techniques were used against interned prisoners captured in Northern Ireland, including white noise. The Irish government complained to the European Commission for Human Rights, who found Britain guilty of torture; however the higher European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government's actions were "inhuman and degrading but did not constitute torture". [5]
  • In Soviet mental hospitals, used to hold political prisoners, very unpleasant medications were given to these "patients" as a means of punishment. A psychiatric diagnosis was devised to describe people who oppose government policies.
  • In 1978, "Pisaot menuh" ("Human Experiments") were performed on seventeen political prisoners held at the infamous prison Tuol Sleng in Phnom Penh under the Khmer Rouge.
  • A study called "The Aversion Project" found that gay conscripts in the South African Defense Forces (SADF) during the apartheid era had been forced to submit to "curing" their homosexuality, both by electroshock therapies and by botched sex changes.
  • There have been numerous claims that electroconvulsive therapy and prefrontal lobotomies and similar psychiatric treatments have sometimes been performed not in the patient's best interests, but rather as punishment for misbehaviour or to otherwise make the patient easier to manage. A classic example of this is the Lake Alice, New Zealand atrocity which occurred in the early 1970s. Children admitted to the Lake Alice Hospital's open child and adolescent unit were routinely punished with unmodified electroconvulsive treatment. Some governments (e.g. Norway and New Zealand) have since begun paying reparations to patients who suffered such treatments. The World Health Organization has called for a ban on unmodified ECT, and states no form of it should be used on children.

[edit] Asserted medical or professional complicity

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights' When Healers Harm campaign, health professionals were complicit in the torture and abuse of detainees during the so-called “war on terror” of U.S. President George W. Bush. Health professionals are those who are trained or licensed in a healing profession, including: medical doctors, psychiatrists, medical examiners, psychologists, and nurses. All of these professions have been implicated in the torture and abuse of prisoners in CIA secret prisons and in military detention centers, such as those in Guantánamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Among other things, health professionals:
  • crafted abusive tactics and falsely legitimized their use;
  • advised interrogators on methods of abuse that would exploit prisoners’ vulnerabilities;
  • used medical procedures to harm prisoners;
  • gauged pain and monitored interrogations that risked leaving prisoners in need of treatment;
  • checked prisoners to certify that they were capable of surviving additional abuse;
  • conditioned medical or mental health treatment on cooperation with interrogation;
  • shared confidential patient information that was used to harm patients;
  • covered up evidence of torture and abuse; and
  • turned a blind eye to cruel treatment.
State licensing boards and the professional associations have the responsibility to uphold medical ethics and to hold medical professionals accountable for their participation in abuse. To date, none of these bodies has investigated – nor, in some cases, even acknowledged – abusive conduct by individual members of their professions. In 2009, after years of denial, the American Psychological Association finally recognized that psychologists had engaged in torture. However, the American Psychological Association has yet to acknowledge that psychologists were in fact integral to the Bush Administration’s torture policy. Some criticize the APA for failing to respond to allegations of “collusion between APA officials and the national security apparatus in providing ethical cover for psychologists’ participation in detainee abuse."[6]
Although the American Medical Association has made clear that physicians should not be involved in interrogations of any kind, it continues to insist that it has “no specific knowledge of doctors being involved in abuse or torture,” despite widely known evidence to the contrary, including government documents and Office of Legal Counsel memos, a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and multiple accounts by survivors.[7][8]
Some other accounts of medical or professional complicity in torture include:
  • The SERE ("Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape") program's chief psychologist, Col. Morgan Banks, issued guidance in early 2003 for the "behavioral science consultants" who helped to devise Guantánamo's interrogation strategy although he has emphatically denied that he had advocated the use of SERE counter-resistance techniques to break down detainees. The New Yorker notes that in November, 2001 Banks was detailed to Afghanistan, where he spent four months at Bagram Air Base, "supporting combat operations against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters".
  • A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch suggested that torture was routine under the appointed Iraqi government. Human Rights Watch Report
  • Dr. J.C. Carothers, British colonial Kenyan psychiatrist, has been implicated by some recent academic historians in designing interrogation of Mau Mau prisoners.[citation needed] His advice was published by the Kenya Government as The Psychology of Mau Mau, in 1954.[1]
  • Similarly, it has been implied that Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Ayad Allawi violated his obligation to medical ethics whilst serving as Western European chief of secret police for the Baathist government of Saddam Hussein. However, the same sources allege that Allawi had abandoned his medical education at that point and his medical degree "was conferred upon him by the Baath party." [9].

[edit] In fiction

  • Actor Michael Palin plays a medical torturer in Director Terry Gilliam's 1985 dark comedic dystopian film Brazil.
  • In the film adaptation of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four the main character, Winston Smith, is subjected to medical torture by the thought police.
  • Actor Gregory Peck plays Nazi medical torturer Josef Mengele in Director Franklin J. Schaffner's The Boys from Brazil.
  • Actor Laurence Olivier plays Nazi torturer dentist Christian Szell in Director John Schlesinger's 1976 Marathon Man.
  • The film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, starring Jack Nicholson, depicts abuse of psychiatric techniques including electroconvulsive therapy and lobotomy.
  • In the popular series, "24", various forms of medical torture (including hallucinogens, and injections) are utilized to obtain confessions and information from high- threat terrorists being interrogated in the fictional Counter-Terrorist Unit (CTU) of the United States.
  • In Anthony Burgess' book A Clockwork Orange, Alex, the anti-hero of the book, undergoes a fictional medical torture program called 'The Ludovico Technique', in which he is given a nausea-inducing drug, strapped to a chair with his eyelids forced open and forced to watch hours of films of extreme violence and rape to condition him to associate feelings of nausea with rape and violence.
  • The theme of the 2009 horror film The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is that of a sadistic, psychopathic retired surgeon torturing three people by surgically connecting them mouth to rectum, forcing the last two to swallow the excrement of the person in front of them and physically beating all three of them if they try to rebel or escape.
  • In the book Dearly Devoted Dexter by Jeff Lindsay the central antagonist is a character nicknamed 'Dr. Danco' who surgically removes all body parts not necessary for life from his victims as what is revealed to be forfeits in a twisted game of hangman, carrying out the operations with the victim conscious and watching the procedures in a mirror.

Double-Cross System

The Double-Cross System, or XX System, was a World War II anti-espionage and deception operation of the British military intelligence arm, MI5. Nazi agents in Britain – real and false – were captured, turned themselves in or simply announced themselves and were then used by the British to broadcast mainly disinformation to their Nazi controllers. Its operations were overseen by the Twenty Committee under the chairmanship of John Cecil Masterman; the name of the committee comes from the number 20 in Roman numerals: "XX".
The policy of MI5 during the war was initially to use the system for counter-espionage. It was only later that its potential for deception purposes was realised. Agents from both of the German intelligence services, the Abwehr and Sicherheitsdienst (SD), were apprehended. Many of the agents who reached British shores turned themselves in to the authorities. Still others were apprehended when they made elementary mistakes during their operations. And some were false agents who had tricked the Germans into believing they would spy for them if they helped them reach England (e.g. Treasure, Fido). Later agents were instructed to contact agents in place who, unknown to the Abwehr, were already controlled by the British. The Abwehr and SD sent agents over by a number of means including parachute drops, submarine and travel via neutral countries. The last route was most commonly used, with agents often impersonating refugees. After the war it was discovered that all the agents Germany sent to Britain had given themselves up or had been captured[when?][1] with the possible exception of one who committed suicide.

Contents

 [hide

[edit] Early agents

Following a July 1940 conference in Kiel, the Abwehr (German intelligence) launched an espionage campaign against Britain involving both intelligence gathering and sabotage. The spies were sent over from Europe in various ways; some parachuted or came off a submarine. Others entered the country on false passports, or legally as refugees.[2]
Public perception in Britain at that time was that the country was full of well trained German spies who were deeply integrated into society. There was widespread, as Churchill put it, "spy-mania". The truth was that between September and November 1940 less than twenty five agents arrived in the country; mostly of Eastern European extraction, badly trained and poorly motivated.[2]
The agents were not difficult to spot - a task made still easier by the cracking of the German's Enigma encryption. MI5, with advance warning of infiltration, had no trouble picking up all of the spies sent to the country. Writing in 1972, John C. Masterman (who would later head the Twenty Committee) said that by 1941 MI5 "actively ran and controlled the German espionage system in [the United Kingdom]." It was not an idle boast; post-war records confirmed that no Abwehr agents went unnoticed.[2][3]
Once caught the spies were deposited in the care of Captain Robert Stephens at Camp 020 (Latchmere house, Richmond). After Stephens, a notorious and brilliant interrogator, had picked apart their life history the agents were either spirited away (to be imprisoned or executed) or, if judged acceptable, offered the chance to turn double on the Germans.[2][4]
Control of these new double agents fell to Thomas Argylle Robertson (usually called Tar, from his initials), a charismatic MI5 agent. A Scot, and something of a playboy, Robertson had some early experience with double agents; just prior to the war he had been case officer to Arthur Owens (code name Snow). Owens was an oddity, and it became apparent that he was simply playing the Germans and British against each other - to what end Robertson was unable to uncover. The experiment had not appeared to be a success, but MI5 had learned key lessons about how the Abwehr operated and how double agents might be useful.[2]
Robertson, in particular, believed that turning German spies against their masters would have numerous benefits; for example what information the Abwehr wanted or to actively mislead them as part of a military deception. In addition it would discourage them from sending more agents if they believed an operational network existed. Section B1A (a subordinate of B section, under Guy Liddell) was formed and Robertson was put in charge of handling the double agent program.[5]
Robertson's first agents were not a success; Giraffe (George Graf) was never really used and Gander (Kurt Goose; MI5 had a thing for amusingly relevant code names) had been sent to Britain with a radio that could only transmit, not receive. Both were quickly decommissioned. The next two attempts involved even more farce; Gosta Caroli and Wulf Schmidt were genuine Nazis landed, via parachute, in September 1940. The two had trained together and were friends - so Caroli was coerced into turning double in return for Schmidt's life being spared. Whilst Schmidt was told that Caroli had sold him out, and in anger he swapped sides.[5]
Caroli quickly became a problem; he attempted to strangle his MI5 handler before making an escape carrying a canoe, on a motorcycle. He vaguely planned to row to Holland, but came unstuck after falling off the bike in front of a policeman. He was eventually recaptured and judged too much trouble to be used. Schmidt was more of a success, and codenamed 'Tate'. But these eccentric spies made Robertson aware that handling double agents was going to be a difficult task.[5]

[edit] Methods of operation

The main form of communication that agents used with their handlers was secret writing. Letters were intercepted by the postal censorship authorities and some agents were caught by this method. Later in the war, wireless sets were provided by the Germans. Eventually transmissions purporting to be from one double agent were facilitated by transferring the operation of the set to the main headquarters of MI5 itself. On the British side, a critical aid in the fight against the Abwehr and SD was the breaking of the German ciphers. Abwehr hand ciphers were cracked early in the war, and SD hand ciphers and Abwehr Enigma ciphers followed thereafter. The signals intelligence allowed an accurate assessment of whether the double agents were really trusted by the Germans and what effect their information had.
A crucial aspect of the system was the need for genuine information to be sent along with the deception material. This need caused problems on a regular basis early in the war, with those who controlled the release of information reluctant to provide even a small amount of relatively innocuous genuine material. Later in the war, as the system became a more coherent whole, genuine information was integrated into the deception system. For example, one of the agents sent genuine information about Operation Torch to the Germans. It was postmarked before the landing, but due to delays deliberately introduced by the British authorities the information did not reach the Germans until after the Allied troops were ashore. The information impressed the Germans as it appeared to date from before the attack, but it was militarily useless to them.

[edit] Operation outside the United Kingdom

It was not only in the United Kingdom that the system was operated. A number of agents connected with the system were run in Spain and Portugal. Some even had direct contact with the Germans in occupied Europe. One of the most famous of the agents who operated outside of the UK was Tricycle. There was even a case where an agent started running deception operations independently from Portugal using little more than guidebooks, maps and a very vivid imagination to convince his Abwehr handlers that he was spying in the UK. This agent, Garbo, created an entire network of phantom sub-agents and finally succeeded in convincing the British authorities that he could be useful. He and his phantom sub-agents were absorbed into the main Double-Cross System, and he became so respected by the Abwehr that they stopped landing agents in Britain after 1942. They thus became wholly dependent on the spurious information which was fed to them by Garbo's network and the other Double-Cross agents.

[edit] Operation Fortitude and D-Day landings

The British put their double-agent network to work in support of Operation Fortitude, a plan to deceive the Germans about the location of the invasion of France. Allowing one of the double agents to claim to have stolen documents describing the closely guarded invasion plans might have aroused suspicion. Instead, agents were allowed to report minutiae such as insignia on soldiers' uniforms and unit markings on vehicles. The observations in the south-central areas largely gave accurate information about the units located there: the actual invasion forces. Reports from southwest England indicated few troop sightings, when in reality many units were housed there. Reports from the southeast depicted the real and the notional Operation Quicksilver forces. Any military planner would know that to mount a massive invasion of Europe from England, Allied units had to be staged around the country, with those that would land first nearest to the invasion point. German intelligence used the agent reports to construct an order of battle for the Allied forces that placed the centre of gravity of the invasion force opposite Pas de Calais, the point on the French coast closest to England and therefore a likely invasion site. The deception was so effective that the Germans kept 15 reserve divisions near Calais even after the invasion had begun at Normandy, lest it prove to be a diversion from the main invasion at Calais.
The Allies were willing to risk exposing the Double Cross network to achieve the needed surprise for the Normandy invasion. However, early battle reports of insignia on Allied units that the German armies encountered only confirmed the information the double agents had sent, increasing the Germans' trust in their network. Some of the double agents were informed in radio messages from Germany after the invasion that they had been awarded the Iron Cross.

[edit] V-weapons deception

The British noticed that, during the V-1 flying bomb attacks of 1944, the weapons were falling 2–3 miles short of Trafalgar Square[6] — the actual Luftwaffe aiming points such as Tower Bridge[7] were unknown to the British. Duncan Sandys was told to get MI5-controlled German agents such as Zig Zag and TATE to report the V-1 impacts back to Germany.[6] In order to make the Germans aim short, the British used the double agents to exaggerate the number of V-1s falling in the north and west of London and not to report, when possible, those in the south and east.[1] For example, circa June 22, 1944, only one of seven impacts was reported as being south of the Thames, when ¾ of the impacts had been there. Although Germany was able to plot a sample of V-1s which had radio transmitters, which confirmed that they had fallen short, the telemetry was disregarded in favour of the human intelligence.[7]
When the German 65th Army Corps received a false Double Cross V-1 report that there was considerable damage in Southampton —which had not been a V-1 target—the V-1s were temporarily aimed at the South Coast Ports. V1s were extremely powerful. As a result, the Double Cross deception also caused retargetting from London, not just inaccurate aiming. However, when V-1s launched from Heinkel He 111s at Southampton on July 7 were inaccurate, British advisor Frederick Lindemann recommended the agents report that the attack caused "heavy losses" in order to save hundreds of Londoners each week at the expense of only a few lives in the ports. When the Cabinet learned on August 15 of the deception, Herbert Morrison said that they had no right to decide that one man should die while another should survive, but the deception was approved to continue.[7]
Moreover, when the subsequent V-2 rocket blitz began with only a few minutes from launch to impact, the deception was enhanced by providing locations genuinely damaged by bombing, verifiable by aerial reconnaissance, for impacts in central London, but each time-tagged with the time of an earlier impact that had fallen 5–8 miles short of central London.[6] From mid-January to mid-February 1945, the mean point of V-2 impacts edged eastward at the rate of a couple of miles a week, with more and more V-2s falling short of central London.[1]

[edit] List of Double-Cross agents

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c Masterman (1972)
  2. ^ a b c d e Macintyre (2012), pp. 34–37
  3. ^ Crowdy (2011), pg. 77
  4. ^ Macintyre (2012), pg. 4
  5. ^ a b c Macintyre (2012), pp. 38–39
  6. ^ a b c Ordway (1979), pp. 467, 468
  7. ^ a b c Irving (1964), pp. 251–53, 257–58

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] Further reading