There has been ample evidence for years that the Bush administration
sought the cover of health-care professionals to justify its use of
Nazi-like torture techniques, but a new report that the American Psychological
Association secretly collaborated with the administration still shocks.
the report by a group of
so-called dissident health-care professionals, as well as human rights activists, is sodden with
unstated comparisons -- analogies that call to mind the machinations of officials in the torture regime of Hitler's
Third Reich to create a veneer of respectability for their vile deeds -- in documenting how the Bush administration, in response to
shocking photos of the abuse of prisoners by American military personnel
Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2004, sough to salvage a hitherto secret
torture program initiated under the guise of fighting the so-called War
This was done by arranging for the APA to secretly work -- or collaborate, a word with justifiably odious connotations -- with officials from
the CIA, White House and the Department of Defense "to create an APA
policy on national security interrogations which comported with
then-classified legal guidance authorizing the CIA torture program," the report states.
secret deal in turn enabled the Justice Department to
argue in secret legal opinions that the program -- since revealed to be
ineffective, constitutionally dubious, in violation of the Geneva
Conventions and deeply damaging to America's standing abroad -- was legal and did not
constitute torture, since the interrogations were being monitored by
health-care professionals to make sure they were safe.
A spokeswoman for the APA, the nation's
largest professional organization for psychologists, denied that the group had coordinated its actions with the government, a not surprising response since the group's hierarchy -- if not necessarily its rank and file --has been in denial about its complicity for years.
There "has never been any coordination between APA and the Bush
administration on how APA responded to the controversies about the
role of psychologists in the interrogations program," Rhea Farberman said.
report details how the Bush administration relied more heavily on psychologists than
psychiatrists or other health-care professionals to monitor interrogations because the APA
was supportive of the involvement of psychologists.
early June 2004, the report said, a senior APA official issued an
invitation to a carefully selected group of psychologists and behavioral
scientists inside the government to a private meeting to discuss the
Bush administration's public relations crisis and the role of
psychologists in the torture program. Following a meeting, the
association issued guidelines that
reaffirmed that it was acceptable for its members to be involved in the
That program, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report released in December, included waterboarding, imprisoning detainees in small boxes, slapping and punching them, depriving them of sleep for as long as a week, and sometimes telling them that they would be killed, their children maimed and their mothers sexually assaulted. Some detainees were subjected to medically unnecessary "rectal feeding" -- a technique that the C.I.A.'s chief of interrogations described as a way to exert "total control over the detainee."
The cynical involvement of the APA and its member psychologists in the program was a clear violation of the associations own ethical standards, and the APA report notes that APA psychologists may have gone so far as to help the government find more efficient ways to obtain information
The APA report states that "the APA's complicity in the torture program, by allowing psychologists to calibrate and administer permitted harm, undermines the fundamental ethical standards of the profession. If not carefully understood and rejected by the profession, this may portend a fundamental shift in the profession's relationship with the people it serves."
Other professional associations have spoken out against torture, including the American Medical Association. Meanwhile, the CIA's own Office of Medical
Services raised objections over the interrogation techniques, but those objections were covered up by the
Why have I and everyone else who has closely followed the torture regime and its fallout correctly assumed that no one of consequence would be held accountable for this darkest of eras? Will psychologists who aided and abetted torturers lose their licenses or otherwise be sanctioned? No way.
Anyone who thought that Barack Obama, having said boo about torture while campaigning for president in 2008, would denounce it after taking office was engaging in fuzzy-wuzzy liberal thinking. For one thing, the new president understood that denouncing, let alone going after Bush and his enablers for their crimes, would scuttle any chance he had of forging a bipartisan consensus for his ambitious first-term agenda. But even this Obama supporter is deeply disappointed at how unwilling the president has been to lay bare the regime's excesses even if stopping short of even suggesting its architects should be prosecuted.
America's moral standing in the world community was squandered during the Bush interregnum, while the CIA's gruesome tactics have provided a ready recruiting tool for terrorists and further exposed American soldiers, journalists and others to the enmity that our refusal to come to terms with these depravities will provoke.
Meanwhile, identifying the APA report's authors as "dissidents," as The New York Times and other outlets are doing, is a bitter reminder of how divided Americans remain -- and how conflicted the mainstream media has been -- over the Bush Torture Regime. Does opposing torture make one a dissident? Have we so little shame over this darkest era in our history? What a sick commentary on the times in which we live.
Dr. Clarissa Pinkola
Estés and I discussed the issue of members of
the "healing profession," as she calls it, collaborating in unethical
and unlawful government conduct in 2008. Dr. E is a psychoanalyst who has been in clinical practice for over 40 years and specializes in post-trauma recovery, often including veterans, as well as being a poet and bestselling author whose books have been
published in 32 languages.
A reprint of our dialogue is here.
That's the problem with conspiracy theories. They always leave more questions than answers.
Good point. My supposition is that either Trig or Tripp was not born to a Palin, which pretty much takes care of the math problem. There is another active rumor in Alaska to the effect that Todd Palin had an affair and fathered a child. Might that child be either Trig or Tripp?
This is a supremely self-interested, likely borderline narcissistic personality person (and I know something about borderline persons).
What was in it for her?
What was in it for her?
While concocting a birth hoax is rather more dramatic than endlessly polishing your narcissism, you are making a provocative connection here. (Or, as the case may be, I am making it for you.)
Palin's "blood libel" outburst after the Tuscon rampage was entirely unnecessary and caused her grievous political harm among an already shrunken core of supporters, but she obviously felt aggrieved because the Giffords bulls eye graphic at her website exposed her to criticism -- justified or not -- and could not leave well enough alone.
She also has repeatedly raged against people who would violate her family's privacy while repeatedly using her husband and children as stage props, most dramatically in her short-lived reality TV show, which was another miscalculation because it further revealed her to be a phony.
No making sense of this lass.
Notice that I'm not taking a position one way or the other on whether she did it, just wondering, if she did it--she's certainly capable of something so irrational and pointless--what the heck she hoped to prove.
Floyd M. Orr, author of PARADIGM SHIFT: THE PALIN MATRIX, released 1/1/11
There are two key differences between the other Babygate bloggers and me. I am quite possibly the only lifetime Democrat in the bunch and I have lived in the South and observed the effects of The Southern Strategy for decades. My book is about national economics and political history as much as it is about Babygate. I had been working on the project years before Sarah Palin entered the national consciousness. The basic intent of the book, as far as Palin goes, was to dare her to either come after me to force a denial of the story or to have the established media pick up the story. Neither of these things occurred, however, one contact I had, apparently a person close to the Palin inner circle, claimed that Palin was fully aware of the book and thankful that few were paying any attention to me.
The most shocking part of the story to me has been the research I have done after the book was released. I have accumulated countless pages of data on the leaders of the Babygate movement. What I have discovered is truly appalling. I have been keeping this material in case I want to publish it at some later date. I am not the only one aware of this material. There are a number of others, but they all deny any direct knowledge of it. The last word I have published concerning my most likely Babygate theory is here: http://floydmorr.blogspot.com/2012/05/diabolical-plan.html
Thank you for your interest, Mr. Mullen! Any further communication should probably be continued through my direct e-mail, ice9 at nctv.com. Thank you again!
This is an excellent summary. However, I personally don't agree with the claim that a "stand-in-baby" was used at the beginning, I don't think that this was the case.
To the commentator above who asked how the baby could have been Bristol's, as she also gave birth to Tripp in December 2008: The answer is rather simple, yet "hard to believe." Trig was not born on April 18, 2008, but much earlier. When exactly, has never been conclusively established, but December 2007/January 2008 would be the best guess. From February 2008 onwards, Bristol appeared in public again.
There would be many more things to say to this. "Babygate" is a highly complex issue, and the complexity has helped the Palins to conceal the truth. However, it was the unwillingness of the mainstream media to take this issue seriously in the first place which prevented an exposure of this scandal - with the media believing that it could backfire on the Democrats (or others).
For further reading, our most important posts about "Babygate" can be found at the right sidebar of our blog:
(Collection of posts about "Babygate", Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy with Trig)
Many thanks again, and keep up the good work.
Thank you for the kind words. Your view regarding the "stand-n" baby is plausible.
What happened is a hoax meant to sway an election, taking advantage of a disabled child to do so, and a cover-up that persists to this day, abetted by the mainstream media. Scharlott quotes the late Christopher Hitchens as saying that the hoax and its sordid details was common knowledge to him and his top-tier journalist pals. Which implies that it must be the true decision-makers of our national media that have chosen to leave this hoax unreported.
Why? Because to report it would mean that lots of VIPs would have really unpleasant explaining to do. And it would reflect so badly on the GOP's "family values" that the hoax was supposed to symbolize, that it was all based on a lie. As we know it is anyway.
So, this remains a very important issue in terms of freedom of the press to report chicanery, even at the top levels of our wanna-be leaders.
(By the way, the "hasty return" from the talk in Texas, with the alleged amniotic fluid leak, was hasty only per Palin's own account. There is no other supporting evidence that calls were made, plane tickets were changed, or any haste whatsoever demonstrated. Ditto re the alleged phone calls with the MD in Alaska, who has corroborated nothing: we know about these phone calls only from Sarah Palin, a well-documented and chronic liar.)
Good for you to keep raising this issue. It is waaaaaay more important than Sarah Palin. I believe the photos prove she was not pregnant: there are too many photos that show her flat profile too close to the "birth" and immediately following or preceding other photos that show her with a watermelon-sized belly. You can put on a fake "empathy belly" at will, but you can't take off a real pregnancy and then have it intact a day later. I believe the proof is in the photos. Until more people decide to talk. Tick tock.
-- Although the question of Trig's bio-parentage is interesting, as is Bristol's role, it is very easy to go far afield with various conjectures. Trig's bioparentage is irrelevant to the fact that PALIN WAS NOT PREGNANT WITH TRIG. That is the key fact re the hoax. All else is interesting red herrings in terms of unmasking the hoax, including the multiple babies issue. Her tubal ligation after Piper and before Trig, even, is not as relevant as the simple question: was she pregnant or not pregnant?
-- I was one of those who pressed McGinniss on his blog to come off the fence re his "trignosticism," and he made it clear at one point that he was sure there was a hoax but if he said so his book would be marginalized as being written by a crazy person. As it turns out, his book had enough well-documented negative info about Palin to be marginalized anyway.
-- There is a rumor that there was a comprehensive story about the hoax ready to go to press at the ADN just before the election, but it was pulled by management at the last minute. If true, there is surely a copy of it around somewhere. More interesting than its contents are the lines of force that kept it from being published.
-- The "Gusty photos" (showing Palin in watermelon-sized-belly mode) appeared on the web only in August. Could they have been taken then (in Aug 2008) rather than before Trig's birth? a video appeared after the election saying no, the Gusty photos were taken when the legislature finished the budget on a "Live at 5" broadcast. However, the alleged 5 o'clock taping shows a dark glass panel in the door behind Palin, her styling is more like that done by the RNC than her own efforts (hair combed, down, no scarf, giant belly, thinner face). The video serving as "proof" of the date of the photos has multiple splices in it and should be inspected closely.
-- The medical letter has so many more oddities than you list, notably the MD's signature in two colors of ink, suggesting sloppy Photoshopping.
With your near-Pulitzer background, I wish you would go for it: solve this hoax and win the prize. But even more important, bring the real facts of the 2008 election to the fore.
The claim that the "Gusty-pictures" which were taken on April 13, 2008 could be photoshopped was intensively investigated by the "Trig Truthers" in 2008/2009 and proved to be a dead end. No real evidence could be found that these photos were manipulated, and Andrea Gusty herself published a forceful rebuttal:
It is true however that these pictures were published on flickr on August 31, 2008 in an obvious attempt to silence the "fake pregnancy rumours" - and this attempt was successful, as these photos were immediately used to discredit the "doubters." This is the real significance of these photos, I wrote a recap of this issue for example here:
These pictures were even used by a website like "factcheck.org" (as well as Huffington Post) as absolute proof that the pregnancy was not faked. That fact that somebody who fakes a pregnancy needs to look pregnant at some point (in order to be convincing) was simply ignored.
Crucially however, just 18 days before, on March 26, 2008, Sarah Palin's belly was flat.
On April 13, 2008, Sarah Palin wore in fact a pregnancy belly, but this "claim" seems to be so unbelievable and outrageous (from the perspective of a "sane person") that it is virtually impossible to believe. It's the "big lie" that Sarah Palin got away with: We ourselves would never do anything like that - and this is why Sarah Palin got away with it, in combination with the well-documented reluctance in the media to touch the subject...
(see the leaked journolist-emails: http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/04/justin-elliotts-definitive-debunker-of.html )
...due to the fear of a political backlash against the "accusers."
So here we are now, five years later, the truth is still in plain sight, and yet, nobody can openly talk about it.
Finally: When I had an email exchange with a well know liberal journalist in April 2013, this person told me that "everyone" that this person knows is well aware that Palin faked her pregnancy. Apart from Sarah Palin being a fraud, the other scandal is the fact that the media rejected to expose her, despite the fact that they know the truth.
I wrote about it here:
Many thanks again, Shaun, it is so rare that anyone dares to touch this issue (apart from Andrew Sullivan). Any journalist seriously investigating the topic would quickly find out that there is no doubt that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy. I myself for example talked to several Republican politicians in Alaska on the phone in 2009 (for example Lyda Green and Randy Ruedrich), and they are all well aware that Sarah Palin's pregancy wasn't "real." Lyda Green for example herself saw Sarah Palin when she made the pregnancy announcement on March 5, 2008, and saw her again later, and Lyda said to me that Palin did not look pregnant at all (however, she also made it clear that she doesn't know the "truth" about the pregnancy).
I am just feeling bad about the fact that for example Andrew Sullivan's reputation has been damaged due to his courage on this topic, and Joe McGinniss had to suffer as well, and it really is about time to finally reveal the truth.
Thank you for the additional information and perspective.
I do take mild exception to one thing you wrote: Not only do I not believe that Andrew's reputation was damaged in the long run, when and if the smoking gun is found or someone credible with ties to the Palin family confirms the false pregnancy, it will be noted that people like Andrew -- and you and I and a small handful of others -- refused to let the story die.
Joe McGinniss, who wrote about the pregnancy hoax in his book "The Rogue" and there made it absolutely clear that he had not much faith in Sarah Palin's reassurances that nothing was wrong with her pregnancy, was in a similar situation. It's very tragic that he has already passed away.
Yes, in the end, the handful of people who didn't let the story die will be the winners. I just hope that it won't take decades for the truth to be revealed to the public.
There are many photos of her obviously padded/not padded in this area on a regular basis...
One, Palin's return flight home was not "hastily changed" after the "contractions" started. Palin took her ORIGINAL flight, the details of which are public record. There was no last minute changes made by Todd as Palin wrote in her book; they never intended to stay for the black tie ball that night in Texas. Why? Because one cannot camouflage a non-pregnant silhouette in a formal ball gown. They flew home on the originally booked flights.
Secondly, Catherine Baldwin Johnson DID indeed utter a lone but pivotal statement regarding Trig's maternity- after being met with multiple "no comment" answers in regard to Palin's pregnancy, a frustrated editor in chief of the anchorage daily news exasperatedly demanded "can you please just confirm the child we know as Trig Palin was born to governor Sarah Palin on April 18 of 2008?"
And with her lawyer present, Baldwin Johnson stated "I cannot confirm that".
Not "I refuse to speak about the issue". Not "I won't confirm that".
"I CANNOT confirm that".
I take this to mean she literally was not able to confirm the details.
There is a simple reason for her inability to confirm Palin's narrative- Baldwin Johnson was not at Mat Su Regional Medical Center on 4/18/08. She was not even in the same town. She was at another hospital, her presence logged in with her key card.
The CBJ stuff obviously is explosive.
Can you provide anything additional, as in a link to the "I cannot confirm that" interview and details as to where the doctor had logged in?
Please feel free to email me privately at email@example.com
The "I cannot confirm" was, at some point, on the anchorage daily news site, linking to a video of CBJ looking nervous and resentful, with her attorney hovering about six feet behind her. I'm sorry I don't have the time to run it down today but I'll go digging for it tomorrow.
As for the other issue...no, I cannot provide the details you would like. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out why. I truly want nothing more than to shout it from the rooftops- CBJ wasn't at mat su; I know this because she was working a shift WITH ME!
However, I'm perilously close to HIPAA grey areas...and in this economy, I need to keep my very good job which provides the sole support for my family and the benefits which care for my disabled child. (Whom I actually did give birth to without benefit of pre-labor air travel.)
I really keep hoping if I leave the bread crumbs, someone with less to lose than myself with follow them to the door and kick it down.
I notice there is another poster on IM who also is saying CBJ wasn't there. I'm hoping the two of us are but the beginning in a line of swiftly falling dominoes, the last one of which will be Palin herself, tipping over into oblivion.
I want to comment further on the issue of how such hoax could possibly go forward, without someone going public to denounce it as a lie.
A good comparison to make, is the case of fake memoirs. Several high profile memoirs have been found to be fakes, which flourished in the public eye for some years, despite the fact that many people knew of the true identity of the authors. Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments, a supposed Holocaust memoir which received several prestige awards, is one example. Mischa Defonseca, Survival with Wolves, which flourished for years despite the doubts of a small minority, is also worth considering.
Casting doubt upon a personal story seems cranky and illmannered. People like Wilkomirski and Sarah Palin know how to take advantage of this, and portray themselves as brave and truthful. They are anything but.
But to have a secret baby, one would have to be hidden. None of Sarah's kids have been hidden from public view, nor have any of them been out of school, save the election when the campaign was active.
I wish these morons who push the grandson theory would shut up because it just causes people to close their minds.
You all need to "up" your thinking skills.