Open Letter from Scholars & Experts on Ukraine Re So-Called "Anti-Communist Law"

The following is a repost of an Open Letter published at the website, KRYTYKA. It was posted by David R. Marples, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta, Canada.

To the President of Ukraine, Petro O. Poroshenko, and to the Chairman of Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada, Volodymyr B. Hroysman:

We, the undersigned, appeal to you not to sign into law the draft laws (no. 2538-1 and 2558)1 adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on April 9, 2015. As scholars and experts long committed to Ukraine’s regeneration and freedom, we regard these laws with the deepest foreboding. Their content and spirit contradicts one of the most fundamental political rights: the right to freedom of speech. Their adoption would raise serious questions about Ukraine’s commitment to the principles of the Council of Europe and the OSCE, along with a number of treaties and solemn declarations adopted since Ukraine regained its independence in 1991. Their impact on Ukraine’s image and reputation in Europe and North America would be profound. Not least of all, the laws would provide comfort and support to those who seek to enfeeble and divide Ukraine.

We also are troubled by the fact that the laws passed without serious debate, without dissenting votes and with large numbers of deputies declining to take part.

In particular we are concerned about the following: 

• Concerning the inclusion of groups such as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) as “fighters for Ukrainian independence”: Article 6 of this law makes it a criminal offense to deny the legitimacy of “the struggle for the independence of Ukraine in the 20th century” and public denial of the same is to be regarded as an insult to the memory of the fighters. Thus questioning this claim, and implicitly questioning anything such groups did, is being made a criminal offense. 

• Law 2558, the ban on propaganda of “Communist and National Socialist Regimes” makes it a criminal offense to deny, “including in the media, the criminal character of the communist totalitarian regime of 1917-1991 in Ukraine.”

The potential consequences of both these laws are disturbing. Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and, in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war.

However noble the intent, the wholesale condemnation of the entire Soviet period as one of occupation of Ukraine will have unjust and incongruous consequences. Anyone calling attention to the development of Ukrainian culture and language in the 1920s could find himself or herself condemned. The same applies to those who regard the Gorbachev period as a progressive period of change to the benefit of Ukrainian civil society, informal groups, and political parties, including the Movement for Perestroika (Rukh).

Over the past 15 years, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has invested enormous resources in the politicization of history. It would be ruinous if Ukraine went down the same road, however partially or tentatively. Any legal or ‘administrative’ distortion of history is an assault on the most basic purpose of scholarly inquiry: pursuit of truth. Any official attack on historical memory is unjust. Difficult and contentious issues must remain matters of debate. The 1.5 million Ukrainians who died fighting the Nazis in the Red Army are entitled to respect, as are those who fought the Red Army and NKVD. Those who regard victory over Nazi Germany as a pivotal historical event should neither feel intimidated nor excluded from the nation.

Since 1991, Ukraine has been a tolerant and inclusive state, a state (in the words of the Constitution) for ‘citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities’. If signed, the laws of April 9 will be a gift to those who wish to turn Ukraine against itself. They will alienate many Ukrainians who now find themselves under de facto occupation. They will divide and dishearten Ukraine’s friends. In short, they will damage Ukraine’s national security, and for this reason above all, we urge you to reject them.

Signatories (in alphabetical order):

David Albanese, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Soviet and Russian History, Northeastern University, USA

Tarik Cyril Amar, Assistant Professor of History, Columbia University, USA

Dominique Arel, Chair of Ukrainian Studies, University of Ottawa, Canada

Martin Aust, Visiting Professor of History, University of Basel, Switzerland

Mark R. Baker, Assistant Professor, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey

Omer Bartov, John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of History and Professor of German Studies, Brown University, USA

Harald Binder, Ph.D., Founding President, Center for Urban History of East Central Europe, Lviv, Ukraine

Marko Bojcun, Director of the Ukraine Centre, London Metropolitan University, UK

Uilleam Blacker, Lecturer in Comparative East European Culture, University College London, UK

Jeffrey Burds, Associate Professor of Russian and Soviet History, Northeastern University, USA

Marco Carynnyk, Independent Scholar, Toronto, Canada

Heather J. Coleman, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor, Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta, Canada

Markian Dobczansky, Ph.D. candidate, Department of History, Stanford University, USA

Sofia Dyak, Director, Centre for Urban History of East Central Europe, Lviv, Ukraine

Evgeny Finkel, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University, USA

Rory Finnin, University Senior Lecturer in Ukrainian Studies, University of Cambridge, UK

Christopher Ford, Lecturer in Trade Union Education, WEA London, UK

J. Arch Getty, Distinguished Professor of History University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), USA

Christopher Gilley, Research Fellow, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Frank Golczewski, Professor in the Program in History, University of Hamburg, Germany

Mark von Hagen, Professor of History, School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies, Arizona State University, USA

André Härtel, Lecturer in International Relations, Department of Political Science, University of Jena, Germany

Guido Hausmann, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany

John-Paul Himka, Professor Emeritus, Department of History & Classics, University of Alberta, Canada

Adrian Ivakhiv, Professor of Environmental Thought and Culture, University of Vermont, USA

Kerstin S. Jobst, Professor of East European History, University of Vienna, Austria

Tom Junes, PhD (historian) - Imre Kertész Kolleg, Jena, Germany

Andreas Kappeler, Professor Emeritus of History, University of Vienna, Austria

Ivan Katchanovski, Adjunct Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Canada

Padraic Kenney, Professor of History, Indiana University, USA

Olesya Khromeychuk, Teaching Fellow, University College London, UK

Oleh Kotsyuba, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University, USA

Matthew Kott, Researcher at Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University, Sweden

Mark Kramer, Program Director for Cold War Studies, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University, USA

Nadiya Kravets, Postdoctoral Fellow, Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University, USA

Olga Kucherenko, Independent Scholar, Cambridge, UK

John J. Kulczycki, Professor Emeritus, Department of History, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

Victor Hugo Lane, York College, City University of New York, USA

Yurii Latysh, Taras Shevchenko National University, Kyiv, Ukraine

David R. Marples, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History &; Classics, University of Alberta, Canada

Jared McBride, Visiting Assistant Professor of History, Columbia University, USA

Brendan McGeever, Early Career Research Fellow, Birkbeck, University of London

Javier Morales, Lecturer in International Relations, European University of Madrid, Spain

Tanja Penter, Professor of Eastern European History, Heidelberg University, Germany

Olena Petrenko, Ph.D. Student, Department of East European History, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany

Simon Pirani, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, and Lecturer on Russian and Soviet History, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK

Yuri Radchenko, Senior Lecturer, Kharkiv Collegium Institute of Oriental Studies and International Relations, and Director of Center for Inter-ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe, Kharkiv, Ukraine

William Risch, Associate Professor of History, Georgia College, USA

Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, Research Fellow, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Germany

Blair Ruble, Political Scientist, Washington, DC, USA

Per Anders Rudling, Associate Professor of History, Lund University, Sweden

Martin Schulze Wessel, Chair of Eastern European History, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany

Steven Seegel, Associate Professor of History, University of Northern Colorado, USA

Anton Shekhovtsov, Visiting Senior Fellow, Legatum Institute, London, UK

James Sherr, Associate Fellow, Chatham House, London, UK

Volodymyr Sklokin, Researcher, Center for Urban History of East-Central Europe, Lviv, Ukraine

Iryna Sklokina, Researcher, Center for Urban History of East-Central Europe, Lviv, Ukraine

Yegor Stadny, Ph.D. Student, Department of History, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine

Andreas Umland, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, Kyiv, Ukraine

Ricarda Vulpius, Research Fellow, Department for the History of East- and Southeastern Europe, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany

Lucan Way, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, Canada

Zenon Wasyliw, Professor of History, Ithaca College, USA

Anna Veronika Wendland, Research Coordinator, The Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe, Marburg, Germany

Frank Wolff, Assistant Professor of History and Migration Studies, Osnabrück University, Germany

Christine Worobec, Professor Emerita, Northern Illinois University, USA

Serhy Yekelchyk, Professor of Slavic Studies and History, University of Victoria, Canada

Tanya Zaharchenko, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Historical Research, Higher School of Economics, Saint Petersburg, Russia

Sergei Zhuk, Associate Professor of History, Ball State University, Indiana, USA

"Government harassing and intimidating Bradley Manning supporters"

You must catch this Glenn Greenwald article, as the possibility of the U.S. devolving into a totally fascistic state becomes actualized before our eyes. This is the kind of thing that must not stand. Political change is not only becoming an impossibility, making it so is the primary policy of the Barack Obama administration. Sure, the GOP may be worse, but that thin line of difference is becoming as transparent as fine gossamer. For all practical reasons, there's been no difference, and hasn't for a long time.

Here's a piece from the article, which I think readers should click through to and read the whole thing.

In July of this year, U.S. citizen Jacob Appelbaum, a researcher and spokesman for WikiLeaks, was detained for several hours at the Newark airport after returning from a trip to Holland, and had his laptop, cellphones and other electronic products seized -- all without a search warrant, without being charged with a crime, and without even being under investigation, at least to his knowledge.  He was interrogated at length about WikiLeaks, and was told by the detaining agents that he could expect to be subjected to the same treatment every time he left the country and attempted to return to the U.S. Days later, two FBI agents approached him at a computer conference he was attending in New York and asked to speak with him again.  To date, he has never been charged with any crime or even told he's under investigation for anything; this was clearly a thuggish attempt by federal officials to intimidate any American citizen involved with or supporting WikiLeaks.

That campaign of intimidation is now clearly spreading to supporters of Bradley Manning.  Last Wednesday, November 3, David House, a 23-year-old researcher who works at MIT, was returning to the U.S. from a short vacation with his girlfriend in Mexico, and was subjected to similar and even worse treatment.  House's crime:  he did work in helping set up the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization created to raise money for Manning's legal defense fund, and he has now visited Manning three times in Quantico, Virginia, where the accused WikiLeaks leaker is currently being detained (all those visits are fully monitored by government agents).  Like Appelbaum, House has never been accused of any crime, never been advised that he's under investigation, and was never told by any federal agents that he's suspected of any wrongdoing at all.

Last Wednesday, House arrived at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, and his flight was met in the concourse by customs agents, who examined the passports of all deplaning passengers until they saw House's, at which point they stopped.  He was then directed to Customs, where his and his girlfriend's bags were extensively searched.  After the search was complete, two men identifying themselves as Homeland Security officials told House and his girlfriend they were being detained for questioning and would miss their connecting flight.  House was told that he was required to relinquish all of his electronic products, and thus gave them his laptop, cellphone, digital camera and UBS flash drive.  The document he received itemizing his seized property is here.  He was also told to give the agents all of his passwords and encryption keys, which he refused to do.

House was then taken to a detention room by two armed agents and on his way there, he passed by a room in which several individuals were plugging various instruments into his laptop and cellphone.  The two agents, Marcial Santiago and Darin Louck, proceeded to question him for 90 minutes about why he was visiting Manning in prison, what work he did to support the Manning campaign, who else was involved in the Manning support group, and what his views were on WikiLeaks.  He was told that he would not receive his laptop or camera back, and the agents kept it.  To date, he has not received them back and very well may never.... He subsequently learned from Agent Santiago that although Agent Louck identified himself as a Homeland Security agent, he is, in fact, with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.

A commenter at Salon inquires, wisely: "Why were they so quick on these guys tails, when the Mumbai guy gets off scott free, hired by the government and sent to Pakistan over his ex-wives attempts to alert 'authorities' of the craziness of their husband?"

Why, indeed?

European Union: Protest Sanctions Against Judge Garzón

The following is a press release from Human Rights Watch, dated April 22, 2010, describing the protest of the European Union against possible prosecution and suspension of Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón, who has been investigating crimes of the previous Fascist regime of Francisco Franco. Judge Garzón has previously brought charges against other international figures for torture and crimes against humanity, such as former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

(Brussels) – The president of the European Union Council, Herman van Rompuy, and EU member states should express their concern over the prosecution and the potential suspension of Judge Baltasar Garzón of Spain for investigating Franco-era abuses, Human Rights Watch said today.

Garzón, of Spain’s National Audience tribunal, faces trial and suspension from his duties for investigating alleged cases of illegal detention and forced disappearances committed in Spain between 1936 and 1952. A Supreme Court investigating magistrate, Luciano Varela, has ruled that by intentionally bypassing Spain's 1977 amnesty law for "political acts," Garzón committed an abuse of power.

"Garzón sought justice for victims of human rights abuses abroad and now he's being punished for trying to do the same at home," said Lotte Leicht, EU advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. "The decision leaves Spain and Europe open to the charge of double standards and undermines the EU's credibility and effectiveness in the fight against impunity for serious crimes."

Varela’s decisions are expected to lead to a criminal prosecution of Garzón, and as a result, Spain’s General Council of the Judiciary (Consejo General del Poder Judicial) will consider Garzón’s temporary suspension.

However, Garzón’s decision not to apply Spain’s amnesty is supported by international conventional and customary law, which impose on states a duty to investigate the worst international crimes, including crimes against humanity. The sanctions against Garzón are not only a blow to the families of victims of serious crimes in Spain, Human Rights Watch said. The sanctions also risk undermining the EU’s collective credibility and effectiveness in seeking justice for current human rights crimes, be they in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Sri Lanka.

Under international law, governments have an obligation to ensure that victims of human rights abuses have equal and effective access to justice, as well as an effective remedy – including justice, truth, and adequate reparations – after they suffer a violation. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Spain ratified in 1977 – before adopting the amnesty law - specifically states that governments have an obligation “to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms … are violated shall have an effective remedy.”

In 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee, in charge of monitoring compliance with the ICCPR, called on Spain to repeal the 1977 amnesty law and to ensure that domestic courts do not apply limitation periods to crimes against humanity. In 2009, the Committee against Torture also recommended that Spain “ensure that acts of torture, which also include enforced disappearances, are not offences subject to amnesty” and asked Spain to “continue to step up its efforts to help the families of victims to find out what happened to the missing persons, to identify them, and to have their remains exhumed, if possible.”

The European Court of Human Rights held in 2009 (Ould Dah v France No. 13113/03, Decision on admissibility) as a general principle, that an amnesty law is generally incompatible with states’ duty to investigate acts of torture or barbarity.

On the other side of world events, and the globe, Scott Horton reminds us that justice for past crimes against humanity is not an impossibility:

Reynaldo Bignone served as Argentina’s head of state from 1982-83. He was involved in the military coup d’état that brought down Isabel Perón in 1976. Together with a number of other leaders of the military government that followed Perón, he was recently tried in Buenos Aires on charges that he authorized the torture and mistreatment of prisoners, kidnapping, and the operation of extralegal prisons, together with other crimes against humanity....

Bignone was convicted and received a 25-year sentence this week. His plea that he be allowed to serve his term under house arrest was denied because of the gravity of his crimes. He was ordered transferred to a prison outside of Buenos Aires....

The case of Reynaldo Bignone may make instructive reading for former Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Deputy Director Steven Kappes. Cheney is in retirement, and Kappes is preparing to leave the agency. Both should be cautious about any future travel plans.

One imagines that Judge Garzón has read this news with some satisfaction, as he led international prosecutions of former members of the Argentinian military back in the 1990s.

Right-Wing Pursues Spanish Judge Who Investigated Pinochet, Bush Torture, Franco-Era Killings

Cross-posted from Firedoglake

An appeal to the Spanish Supreme Court by National Court judge Baltasar Garzón was denied last month, and in May he must appear before the Supreme Court itself. The charges? That Garzón violated his jurisdictional authority by investigating mass murder that took place under the rule of fascist dictator Francisco Franco. In Spain, judges have investigatory and prosecutorial powers that judges do not have in the United States.

Judge Garzón is most famously known for his ordering the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998. Ultimately, the United Kingdom did not turn Pinochet over to Spain to be tried for crimes against humanity, and he was released on so-called medical grounds. Ultimately, Pinochet was indicted in Chile for tax fraud and forgery and died under suspended house arrest.

The Spanish judge, who sought Pinochet under international legal principles of universal jurisdiction, also “filed charges of genocide against Argentine military officers on the disappearance of Spanish citizens during Argentina’s 1976-1983 dictatorship.” In the United States, in 2009, Judge Garzón was in the news for his attempt to indict six Bush-era officials for creating the legal framework for torture, namely John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, and William Haynes, II.

But Garzón’s current problems date back to a case from last year, when the right-wing group, Manos Limpias (“Clean Hands”) brought charges against him. They contended that Garzón was violating the terms of a 1975 amnesty law passed after Franco died. But many human rights groups contest the legality of that law, and Garzón himself has declared that it did not — indeed, could not — cover crimes against humanity, which are subject to prosecution under universal jurisdiction.

Investigating Mass Murder and Torture

According to an article in Times Online:

The case centres on an investigation into the disappearance of at least 100,000 people during the Spanish Civil War and Franco’s dictatorship. Judge Garzón issued an unprecedented order [in 2008] to exhume from 25 mass graves the bodies of people who were shot by firing squad or murdered on the orders of kangaroo courts.

The judge began the controversial legal action last year at the request of families of the missing. He alleged that the killings of thousands of civilians were carried out systematically by Franco and his political allies. He accused the dictator, 44 army officers and members of the Falange fascist party of crimes against humanity.

Spain’s conservative Popular Party and the Roman Catholic Church were dismayed by Garzón’s actions. Buy the judge did not act purely on his own initiative. According to the UK Guardian, in a story at the time:

The judge’s investigation stems from around 1,200 petitions from families and associations asking for information on those who “disappeared” between July 1936 and November 1975, when Franco’s soldiers often dispatched dissidents during a paseo, a “stroll” that ended with a bullet in the head and an unmarked grave.

The Spanish magistrate also made no friends when he investigated corruption within the Popular Party, and some in Spain see this as payback. The amnesty case is just one of three court cases filed against Garzón. Just the other day, he was in court for supposedly taking a bribe.

Garzón also got heat from conservatives in the United States over his pursuit of the Bush Administration “Six”. Those charges, from last March, ultimately went nowhere. Even more, conservatives pushed through a bill in the Spanish parliament that forbid universal jurisdiction prosecutions, unless they involved Spanish citizens. But at the end of January 2010, Judge Garzón announced he would “begin an inquiry into the suspected torture and ill-treatment of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay… focused on Spanish citizen and ex-Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Abderraman Hamed,” the so-called “Spanish Taliban” (H/T various commenters at FDL). Formal criminal investigations into the same six Bush Administration figures have commenced.

As Scott Horton described it last February:

In its decision, the Spanish court concluded that the American Justice Department was not involved in any credible effort to investigate or prosecute torture cases connected with Guantánamo. It also announced that the Justice Department had defaulted in response to letters rogatory seeking clarification of issues surrounding the incidents of torture in which the Justice Department itself was directly involved. (So much for Eric Holder’s pledge of cooperation with European counterterrorism investigators.)

While the Obama administration has not commented on Garzón’s latest troubles, former Bush/Rumsfeld speech writer, and new Washington Post columnist, Marc Thiessen can barely contain his glee. “Poetic Justice,” Thiessen crowed, when the Supreme Court announced a few weeks back it would go ahead with the charges against Garzón. To the uber-conservative Thiessen, who thinks waterboarding is just fine, Baltasar Garzón is a “rogue” judge, and his legal troubles are “Good news on the international law front.” The fact that Garzón has prosecuted both Basque and Al Qaeda terrorists, that he has investigated corruption in both conservative and socialist parties, means nothing to a paid ideologue like Thiessen.

Support Grows for Spanish Judge

But not everyone feels this way. The New York Times ran an editorial last week castigating the Spanish Supreme Court’s decision — “the politically driven case… should have been thrown out of court — and the judge has the support of “government ministers, eminent judges and Pedro Almodóvar, the Oscar-winning film director.” Protesters have taken to the streets in Garzón’s support, and there have been trade union rallies.

In Argentina, Garzon supporters are taking up his crusade to get justice for the crimes of Fascist Spain, helping the man who once tried to help their country come to terms with the deaths and disappearances of the military regime that once ruled that country. According to an April 14 AP story at the Huffington Post, Argentine human rights groups will ask for their own “local judicial probe of murders and disappearances as well as alleged genocide committed during Spain’s Civil War and Gen. Francisco Franco’s long dictatorship,” relying on complaints by relatives of Spanish and Argentine victims of the 1936-1939 war, who apparently already filed their cases in Argentina’s federal court.

Progressives in the United States owe a great debt of gratitude to Judge Garzón, for standing up for what is right — accountability for torture and other war crimes, the principles of international law and universal jurisdiction — and obviously he has put his life and career on the line for these principles. We cannot be indifferent to his fate.

Update: It should be noted that Manos Limpias was joined in its complaint against Judge Garzón by the Freedom and Identity association and the ultra-right Spanish Falange. The Falange, or Spanish Fascist Party, was the only party allowed to exist in Spain during the years of Franco’s rule.

Late Summer Reads on Psychology, Anthropology & National Security

For those trying to squeeze in some serious late summer reading, I strongly recommend Dr. Bryant Welch's recently published book, State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind.

Dr. Welch elegantly and succinctly describes the psychological mechanisms behind paranoia and denial, and links them to the mindset of many Americans post-9/11. This societal regression due to fear and uncertainty is exploited by political leaders and charlatans in a process Dr. Welch calls political gaslighting. The term "gaslighting" is derived from the classic movie Gaslight (with Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman), where a sociopathic husband subtly manipulates his wife's reality and invalidates her sense of what is real, until she feels she is becoming insane and enters a state of mental breakdown.

From State of Confusion:

When the mind's reality sense is repeatedly manipulated by clever people with devious intent, victims' mental ability to function is effectively eroded, and they become disoriented. Rationality falls by the wayside. People behave erratically, and, because of their own ever increasing uncertainty, they become dependent on demagogues and ideologues who speak confidently and appear to offer escape from the uncertainty. This has happened to millions of Americans who, lured by moralistic bromides, have turned to neoconservative spokesmen, ministers, and politicians and become dependent upon them, even enthralled by them....

Political gaslighting is a sophisticated psychological art form that has combined with mass media techniques to become a very powerful political instrument.... the American mind is being manipulated, making America's national behavior highly dysfunctional and volatile.

The book goes into more detail on the mental and social processes involved in this national regression and experience of mass manipulation, making it clear we live in very dangerous times. Those who seek to fight back against political reaction need to read about and understand the social-psychological processes that inhabit the psyches of those who fall under the sway of such reaction, and I can think of no better introduction than Dr. Byrant's book.

"The "Melding of Science and Commerce"

For those who may not have the time to read a full book right now, there are a few good articles I'd like to recommend.

For those following the controversy at APA, a long-time psychologist has started a website, VirtualAPA, and has produced two articles on the controversies over psychologist participation in torture and coercive interrogations. While I can't say I follow some of his more philosophical musings, his analysis of the dilemma that faces the American Psychological Association and institutional psychology (and by extension, psychiatry and medicine in general) is both sharp and incisive.

Psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen are not members of APA and can only be assailed from afar as unethical practitioners or ill informed scientists. The entity of Mitchell, Jessen and Associates can continue to operate and will function according to an entrepreneurial ethic. Their SERE training model is a brand, a product that has been successfully marketed to the military and to private corporate interests. The extension of their model into the detention centers and the “reverse engineering” is a logical business decision. They have increased their market share and can justify their actions, just as any military contractor does, that their efforts are good for the country and good for business.

This melding of science and commerce permeates the entire field.

Embedding Anthropologists?

Finally, over at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Hugh Gusterson has a good article on The U.S. Military's Quest to Weaponize Culture. In the article, Gusterson explains both the rationale and the growing opposition to embedding anthropologists and other social scientists in military operational teams, such as the so-called Human Terrain Team System:

The Pentagon plans 26 Human Terrain Teams--one for each combat brigade in Iraq and Afghanistan. The five-person teams include three military personnel. Each team also includes an anthropologist--or another social scientist--who will wear a military uniform and receive weapons training. Described as doing "armed social work" by David Kilcullen, an Australian expert in counterinsurgency who advises Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, the teams elicit information from villagers for Pentagon databases and provide cultural orientation to U.S. military leaders....

Last year, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) issued a statement condemning the use of anthropologists in Human Terrain Teams....

One cannot grasp AAA's concerns without understanding that anthropologists have a unique research method that brings with it special ethical responsibilities: We engage in what one anthropologist has called "deep hanging out" with people, passing the time with them, often day after day for months, painstakingly earning their trust and getting them to tell us about their worlds. What distinguishes anthropology from espionage (apart from anthropologists' impenetrable jargon) is that we seek the consent of our subjects, and we follow an injunction to do no harm to those we study. According to the anthropological code of ethics, our obligations to those we study trump all others--to colleagues, funders, and nation.

The article continues with an examination of another Pentagon program, Project Minerva, which plans to spend millions of dollars "to mobilize social scientists for open research related to the war on terror."

Meanwhile, U.S. Army personnel are showing up at meetings of anthropologists and taking down names and institutional affiliations of anthropologists who had signed a public pledge not to participate in "counter-insurgency operations in Iraq or in related theaters in the 'war on terror,'" believing that "anthropologists should refrain from directly assisting the US military in combat, be it through torture, interrogation, or tactical advice."

The U.S. ruling class's mobilization of all layers of civil society for the fear-driven defense of the nation against "terror," is leading to the militarization of the society as a whole. We are already far down this path... too far, such that many sober observers would already call the United States "fascistic."

I would stop short of making that judgment, but we may be closer to it than anyone would like to think. What is lacking is an all-out domestic assault against political opponents and organizations the government deems to be a danger to its political rule and ideology. Under fascistic rule, thousands, if not tens, even hundreds of thousands would be jailed, and violent terror against domestic political opponents would become the order of the day.

Let us hope it does not come to that. A portion of the academy is fighting back, as are other sectors of the society. The "hope" presidential aspirant Barack Obama embodies (whether he really intends it or not) is precisely the hope that U.S. society can turn back from the self-destructive path it appears at times determined to follow.