I write this article to respond to Dr. Michael D’Andrea’s suggestion (on December 22, 2014 in the Open Forum of American Counseling Association [ACA] Connect e-digest) that torture was used on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other sites around the world to encourage the terrorists cooperate with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) investigations.1 His comments were based on the released Select Senate Intelligence Committee (SSIC) Report, December 9, 2014, on these issues.2 Dr. D’Andrea began by citing mission statements of the ACA and affiliate divisions, regarding upholding human rights, dignity for the individual, strengthening communities, and producing conditions for a just society. He goes on to advocate for an ACA non-torture statement or policy and for the association to have a peace initiative or project of some type.
It was on September 11, 2001 when 3,000 people lost their lives in New York City, Shanksville Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. with terrorists using jet aircraft to fly into buildings. The US had to respond militarily and we had to find information about any and all future attacks. This put our nation in uncharted territory because terrorism was such a grave threat. Remember, in the days and weeks to follow, we had anthrax scares,3 and the intelligence, at that time, indicated Al Qaeda may use “dirty” nuclear bombs.”4 All indications were more attacks were imminent and many plots had been foiled for ten years after 9/115 Moreover, we knew Al Qaeda terrorists would resist any interrogation and we had to find ways to gain information without breaking the law, thereby commit torture. Those were uncertain times for the United States.
- Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) were a number of different physical and psychological methods, approved by the United States Government, in order to encourage terrorist detainees to disclose information about future plots to harm the country, to be employed only when the detainees were not cooperative, but avoiding tactics which would be considered torture.
The CIA implemented EIT, which stretched the law to the limit.6 These techniques were chosen because they are the same methods used to train military forces to teach solders how to avoid giving information to the enemy if they were captured. 6 The EIT was approved to be used for only “High Valued Detainees,” those who were Al Qaeda leaders who would know of terroristic plans and methods.7 The US has been doing EIT methods, including water boarding, to our own troops for 50 years. All interrogations were carried out allegedly in teams with different experts, which included people in law enforcement, CIA interrogators, language experts, medical personnel, and psychologists and no interrogations or EIT methods were carried out unless the whole team was present.6 Even though EIT may seem cruel to some, people have to consider the entire context in order to perhaps realize reasons they were necessary and justified at the time. I do not write this to sound like I am an expert in national security – I am far from it. I have never served in the military or served veterans neither. It is through my honor and respect for the armed and intelligence services, that I write this paper and post, to counseling and other mental health professionals. Nor do I write this to down play the role of Social Justice in the profession or somehow condemn the counselors who hold the philosophy, and the practice of it, deer. Indeed, no counselor (or any human being) should abuse or torture any person no matter what the circumstances are, and such people who would do those acts, (or know others have done or currently are doing those acts) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We also should be careful not to read something off the headlines, or from a government report, assume it is so and pounce on it, advocating for action, when we do not know the whole context. This article is neither to absolve or excuse what happened (or perhaps what did not occur) but to provide support counselors in their thinking about such issues. So, I hope ACA members will read this as it is intended, to encourage reflection and discussion, not further division or strife within the ACA. My opinions are based on various media reports and other official documents.2, 6, 7, 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12 and my own thinking.
-
ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE SSIC 2014 STUDY ON THE CIA DETAINEE AND INTEROGATION PROGRAM
Pro Arguments: Some may argue the SSIC committee did their job in reporting the “alleged” abuses of the CIA. After all, the purpose of the intelligence committees in both chambers of Congress is to provide oversight of the intelligence agencies – one being the CIA. When operations go awry, the committee has a right and the obligation to investigate and report on their findings. In some cases, it is permissible to release some classified information into public view so the electorate can make decisions about elected officials, shaping the national dialogue on security, help citizens feel safe, and offer an accurate assessment on our own actions to secure the nation.
The SSIC report is based upon five years of work and represents 6,700 pages.2 So it is a significant document that will influence our intelligence efforts for years to come. The Senators obviously put much effort in obtaining the most accurate information they could gather and report their findings in detailed fashion. The United States has historically been regarded as a moral compass for the world with our emphasis on democracy, freedom and liberty. We have been known to be a major enforcer of international law and human rights. As such, we follow international law with a prohibition against torture of any kind and to respect the life of the individual above all else. It was with great disappointment to the committee that they found wide spread physical and mental abuse of detainees in United States custody. Our intelligence officers and military members went beyond what was recommended in the guidelines set forth by our Executive, Judicial and Congressional branches, according to the SSIC report.2 Those individuals violated the people’s trust and sense of decency. Regrettably, the committee found it necessary to own up to our mistakes and release parts of the classified report to the public instead of maintaining a massive cover up.
Con Arguments: Other people may argue differently: This was an all Democratic report because all the Republicans (rightly or wrongly) bowed out two years into it because they thought the Democrats were running an unfair investigation. The same people who wrote the report were briefed on the program three times between 2002-2004 and Congressional leaders wanted to do more EIT than the CIA wanted or was authorized to perform.6 Now, the Democrats reversed themselves and even are denying they were briefed. The alleged facts in this report have been said to have been her misrepresented or totally false. For example, air force psychologist, Dr. James Mitchell, who assisted with the EIT water boarding interrogation on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) suggested in an interview with Megyn Kelly6 the SSIC report states KSM was water boarded 83 times. This did not happen according to Dr. Mitchel. A water boarding session was defined as the 20 minutes on the board. The report defines it as how many pours of water occurred in a 20 minute session, which not part of the original definition.6 At the time, it was also clear that something had to happen to Abu Zubaydah, another Al Qaeda leader and High Valued Detainee, because of high resistance to questioning, who Dr. Mitchel also interrogated with waterboarding, order to obtain more information to prevent further attacks.6 Moreover, the SSIC did not speak to anyone who was involved according to the Kelley interview. According to Dr. Mitchel, when there was any minor infraction in protocol, it was reported immediately.6
Furthermore, this program was reviewed time and again by the Justice Department, The White House, Homeland Security and the CIA Inspector General and perhaps others. As said, there is some testimony that there were always medical personnel present during the EIT sessions and detainees had to be medically approved before such interrogation took place.6 As said, our own service members go through the same techniques so they would be ready to withstand the same types of tactics or worse. Chairperson Feinstein may have had an ulterior motive in releasing otherwise classified material in that the CIA allegedly spied on her office three times and may have wanted to retaliate. The Department of Justice, even after the Senate report was released, declined to prosecute anybody involved. In releasing the report, even with the didacted portions, the Senate revealed our sources and methods, severely damaging our future ability to gather intelligence on threats to the homeland. It might most likely mean that individuals in the intelligence field may be found out and perhaps murdered, not to mention other probable complications that are not yet known or foreseen at this time. The United States may experience more adverse events than positive outcomes for many years to come because of this one report.
THE NATURE OF TERRORISM
- Terrorism is a depraved act for the purpose of changing behavior of whole societies through intimidation and fear with a political and/or religious objective or ideology.
Terrorism is an old practice going back centuries.13 Such acts seem more prevalent these days because of fast paced travel, the 24-hour news cycle, poor immigration policies, the internet, social media and more availability of weaponized technology far more dangerous than any time in the past. This is a type of asymmetric warfare is against civilians, significant geographic locations, national or local infrastructure, government institutions and political leaders. It is my opinion that terrorists are in a category of their own. The cluster of their behaviors is on a magnitude that cannot be totally understood.
Part of the problem in fighting terrorists is establishing common standard language of identifying certain groups who are perpetrating these acts without insulting the larger community, which may share the same ethnic and/or religious heritage or other cultural characteristics. In the modern day, most terrorism seems to come from certain sections of the Muslim or Islamic faith, while many other Muslims want to live in peace and do not engage in such barbaric acts. Terrorism experts have discussed different terms such as “jihadist (or jihadist/jihadi movement)”14 or “Radical Islam”15 to try to isolate extremist terrorists from Muslims who are more mainstream. To be fair, in the history of Western Civilization, there have been other types of groups who have terrorized. Conflict between Christians and Muslims in the Christian Crusades* occurring between 1095-1248 AD16 and the Irish Republican Army fighting for independence of Ireland from Great Britain from 1919-199817 are examples of terrorism wars. Terrorism can either state sponsored or done by separatist groups such as Symbionese Liberation Army, Tupamaros, or Baader Meinhof Gant, which are all terrorist groups seen around the world and over time.18 For a while, now, on the Radical Islamic front, groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as the latest organization to come on the world stage, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) a.k.a. the Islamic State Iraq Levant (ISIL) or the Islamic State (IS) are well known. Terrorism, in general, receives its funding from of money laundering, using charities and the narcotics trade (Narcoterrorism).19 Terrorists will also kidnap people and hold them for ransom as another way of raising funds, which is on the rise currently by extreme Islamic groups.20
As I understand, terrorists have tortured and killed more Muslims than any other group although as they grow and multiply, more Christians are being persecuted around the world more now than at any other time in history, except perhaps since the first three centuries (64-313) AD.21 Currently, our nation is releasing prisoners to other countries only to join the fight again. Research into the recidivism rates of Guantanamo detainees, going back to the fight, from recent statistics in 2014, indicate “out of a total of 614 prisoners…intelligence has confirmed that 104…have re-engaged in terrorism/insurgent activities while another 74 are suspected of doing so.”22 Recidivism, therefore is around 30% of the total detainee population, going back to jihadist activities although I have read from news reports, the current administration has recidivism is as low as 6%.23 No matter what the number, I hope everyone would agree, it is way too many, based on what they will probably do once they are free. It does not seem terrorists cannot be reasoned with or changed in any way so far. There does seem to be no psychological or therapeutic technique that could help them recover or to elicit truthful statements easily. Their hate and rage and acts of depravity do not seem know any bounds.
TRAGIC MORAL CHOICE
War is never easy. Intelligence work is always time sensitive. At any minute of the day, terror attacks could happen anywhere around the world where any number of people could die, become injured, infrastructures disrupted and economies devastated. Military and intelligence operations are often delicate and the issues and actions involved are complex. Sometimes our armed forces and intelligence agencies have to do things to fellow human beings that are unpleasant and/or questionable to stop further attacks or violence. In philosophy of ethics, this type of situation is called a tragic moral choice:
- A tragic moral choice is a situation in which there are no preferable alternatives, only unappealing options and outcomes and one must make a decision.
The goal in this type of situation is to do the least amount of harm to your-self and/or others involved and it usually has to do with considerations of life being in the balance.24 Everyone faces tragic moral choices sometime in their lives. It is the most agonizing and difficult type of decision humans make. In the military, intelligence service and law enforcement, it seems to me, tragic moral choices are made probably more than the average citizen. We must have the utmost respect for those serving our nation or are retired. We must have compassion and love for them, including our political leaders, even when they do things we may disagree with during war.
- Social Justice is “the promotion of equity for all people and groups for the purpose of ending oppression and injustice affecting clients, students, counselors, families, communities, schools, workplaces, governments, and other social and institutional systems.”25
The Social Justice concept means that we have to ensure human rights and dignity. When that definition was written, I do not think the ACA was thinking in geopolitical terms and how national and world leaders may to respond in case of a terrorist attack. It is fine to devise concepts to make everything fair and people should act in accordance with particular rules or codes of behavior. This is alright if we are within the continuum of normal experience, but when the nation is facing tragic moral choices, and time is not on our side, ethics might be “thrown out the window” to preserve a higher ethic – to save lives. In a tragic moral choice, there is no virtuous option so whatever choice one makes, it will be wrong in some way.
While I am against torture and abuse, I worry along with others, especially those in intelligence and the military, about the hypothetical “ticking time bomb scenario” in which intelligence shows a mass casualty attack is imminent. Even though I call such a situation “hypothetical,” such an event is very real to the intelligence and military community as well as federal government because it is something that could happen and the mental health professionals need to understand this too.
The “ticking time bomb scenario,” to review, goes something like this: Authorities have someone in custody who they suspect knows when the next attack will happen and where. The suspect is not talking. They bring in a psychologist who speaks with the suspect, but the man being held does not offer any information. Assuming every other interrogation technique has been tried, at this point, and there is no further evidence in the field to pursue, there is not any other method left but physical and mental coercion. Everybody is concerned about a full scale attack that is minutes to days away – nobody knows exactly when. Only the suspect knows for sure. What are the authorities to do? Does the psychologist walk out under ethical obligations not to torture and know the police will do worse to the suspect than if he were there to supervise and offer less barbaric means, but just enough to obtain information while causing the least amount of suffering to the suspect? If nobody does it for fear it would be labeled torture, hundreds might die as a result!
This hypothetical “ticking time bomb scenario” example, is not in any way, shape or form, to morally justify the torture of anyone, even when such dire circumstances arise. It is, however, equally not morally justifiable to let people die because we are afraid of torturing somebody for information that could stop an attack. Torture, war, and terrorism have been going on since the beginning of human civilization. The organizations representing mental health professions cannot stop torture just because they object. I am afraid we will see more cases of torture used in warfare and the United States will probably not be immune to such acts, but next time, people will “cover their tracks” even better so there will not be any chance ever of the truth surfacing.
I do not want be so pessimistic about the future, but if behavioral and medical professionals do not help the government find better methods other than EIT or torture, or the government refuses to adjust the way they handle High Valued Detainees other than to just talk to them and “serve them tea” or whatever politically correct way the national leaders want to direct their military and intelligence agencies, I am afraid we will see more terror that goes uncontrolled or some kind of physical or mental coercion will continue to be used. In such circumstances, without better methods of interrogation, which actually work to obtain the correct and accurate information, individuals and perhaps whole institutions will be willing to go over the line of the law and perform EIT or torture in such desperate circumstances.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
I would be in favor of a no torture policy to keep counselors from being involved in abusive situations anywhere in clinical work such as institutions, prisons, or private practice and trying to use some of the CIA interrogation information as a justification and defense in court – “they did it, so why can’t we” type of argument. Such actions would be abhorrent, not applicable, and despicable. Further, even if abuse or torture of humans or animals occurs outside their clinical practice, the clinician should have the license revoked for life and suffer severe legal sanctions.
I would also be in favor of continuing to help the public be aware of the nature of terrorism and research best practices when terrorism does occur. Perhaps we could also help research how and why people (especially youth) become radicalized and assist communities in stopping it. On a related note, all mental health professionals and students need more training on how to respond to extremist ideology. This should include education of assessment, our legal and ethical responsibilities if we do come across a client becoming, or has become radicalized, and how to respond on individual, group and community levels in clinical, situations, applied research, and forensic settings. If we want to do a statement, how about we denounce terrorism in all its forms, and dedicate ourselves to assisting governments, victims, and helping interrogators develop non-physical, tactics, whenever possible or appropriate, to obtain truthful information in a timely fashion.
Perhaps neuroscientists will one day come up with technological methods of “true thought detection” or other non-harmful medical interrogation techniques which could overcome deception. ACA leaders, and those from other organizations, may want to begin discussions with the government and other national security experts to see how we keep from using EIT interrogation again and still obtain the information we need in a timely fashion to keep the United States safe. It might be wise for ACA leaders to consult with government officials in a bipartisan way to ensure any policy out of the ACA and its divisions (or other mental health organizations) do not complicate the efforts against terrorism in our country and around the world. Educating political leaders, military personnel and the intelligence officials, on more reasonable methods of interrogation and the proper roles, for mental health professionals could play in the process, might be an effective approach to eliminating, or at least, decreasing the possibility of the United States using torture or EIT again.
Another expert on Social Justice is Dr. Judy Daniels, in her reply to Dr. D’Andrea and others, she indicated that something could be done through the new ACA Center for Policy and Research.26 I would like to suggest that this idea be expanded to include the establishment of another interdisciplinary institute going by a name such as Center for Societal and Terroristic Behavior (CSTB) although such a title could be revised if certain professionals or organizations had other ideas. The important point is that such a center would not only have all the major mental health disciplines involved, it would have sociologists, anthropologists, neuroscientists (and related fields), geneticists, bio/neuroethists, public health professionals, law enforcement, media specialists, religious experts, counterterrorism and intelligence professionals, military representatives, international experts and policy analysts.
Basically, this would be a research, policy, and educational institute. The purpose would be to research the psychological, biological, social and legal phenomena in the form of civil unrest, war, terrorism and situations that may lead to torture. The first goal would be to prevent or mitigate civil crises, terrorism, war, and torture through mental and/or biological health interventions. A second goal would be to assist victims of these large scale societal events. The third goal would be to educate health professionals and the wider public about best practices, health consequences and how to stay safe and maintain health and wellbeing through such trying circumstances. Professionals from other countries could also collaborate with this center – it would become a global behavioral, biological, and social science initiative against violence and international unrest.
How to take such a concept and turn it into reality would require a great deal of time, effort and resources. It would take coordination of many associations and organizations with different agendas to work together. Such a center cannot be politicized by political leaders or by other world views. It has to be driven by science alone. If it can do this, it probably would succeed in achieving productive outcomes for reducing terrorism, social unrest and other societal ills. If, however, the CSTB succumb to falling prey to being politically correct, which then dominates the science, the center would ultimately fail. The ACA is in a strong position, with our emphasis on health and wellness, to lead the effort in establishing a CSTB type concept. I will leave it to the leadership to figure out if such a project is doable and practical. In the meantime, perhaps the current center for policy and research and an ACA Connect interest network on national security and terrorism may help reach counselors who want to assist in such global challenges.
I would like to see some of our military and forensic counselors speak on these issues, who are closer to the terrorism problem because they have treated some clients with criminal behavior and other legal issues or those who have counseled our veterans who know, all too well, about the nature of terrorism. Speaking with trauma counselors who have treated victims of terrorism and violent crime could be helpful as well. Those are the people who really need to take the lead in shaping ACA policy on interrogation and torture.
These suggestions may be reasonable goals for us to achieve rather than merely objecting to torture.
IN CONCLUSION
Behavioral professionals who have military, forensic, or intelligence experience are in a unique position to advise on how to assess behavior and possibly to extract information from terrorists. While this may be true, in my opinion, behavioral science has not developed sufficient interrogation techniques that are not torture and overcome the type of resistance that most terrorists seem to exhibit. What are we to do in the mean time until we figure out other methods? What would happen if a behavioral health professional refuses to participate in an interrogation? What if the mental health expert is under direct orders to help with a specialized interrogation, or be court marshaled? What if a terror attack happened because psychology officers did not advise properly because they were afraid of going over the line to torture? What if the clinician walks away knowing some young soldiers are going do severe bodily harm to a detainee – is that therapist going to be liable? If a psychological or counseling professional whistle blows in the press, because torture is going on and officials will not stop torture, but the whistle blowing increases the chances of more terrorism occurring, is the professional liable? Before the ACA adopts a policy on torture, we should think about such complex issues.
One of the ploys the terrorists take advantage of is our US values of human rights, dignity, freedom, liberty and welfare. They may want to be abused because if they can get the word out, they know it would damage the US reputation. I would be in favor of a peace initiative only if the ACA (divisions included) and other behavioral organizations understand that our armed forces and intelligence services have to perform questionable tactics to keep us safe. If things go wrong or some don’t follow guidelines, the people involved should be punished. The mental health community can help with trauma counseling, emergency response, non-physical methods of interrogation that actually work in short time, (if that can be established scientifically) international and domestic conflict resolution and research into radicalization.
I am aware of the arguments going on within the American Psychological Association (APA) against using psychologists as advisors and performers of torture or any procedure coming close to it.27 I agree and I understand! I do not see, however, any of these professionals offering alternatives to overcome the type of resistance terrorists show and how to extract information from them in an immediate and timely manner to protect a nation and its people. It is, furthermore, obvious, to me that the CIA and other government agencies may not know how to do this task effectively without physical or mental coercion.
I write this at a time when Europe and the rest of the world is on edge after some serious terrorist attacks occurred in Paris, France on January 7, 2015. On the same week, as many as 2,000 people were murdered in Nigeria at the hands of the terrorist group, Boko Haram.28 Australia has been attacked recently. Israel is facing existential threats from Radical Islam like never before. In this country, an extremist assaulted two police officers with a hatchet in New York City. Currently, the United States faces further threats from ISIS and the threat level is as severe as it has been since 9/11. With such realities, it would seem our concerns about torturing detainees, using psychologists, seems to pale by comparison. This is not to minimize the concerns of the mental health community over using our profession to torture others. We can educate the government on the proper role of psychologists and counselors in issues of terrorism.
The mental health profession has a certain political narrative which carries weight in US society and government. I do not want to see the profession blind itself and others in the name of political correctness or Social Justice at the expense of dealing with the practical issues of terrorism. To do the former, I think, would be a mistake to the profession, and a disaster for the country. If we enact a “no torture” policy, followed by education of politicians, military and the intelligence community, we should do it with great care and humility because there are many ambiguous situations in war we may not understand. The mental health associations can have a positive impact on the war on terror, or we can be obstructionist. It is our choice. Which path will we take?
Let us ponder these issues while we seek truth, justice, and peace in the world. Thank you!
*Note: Above I made reference to the Christian Crusades when I wrote my terrorism paper in an effort to be historically correct, but it was never meat to be a moral equivalent to what is happening currently. Muslim Islamic extremists like to call Westerners "the Crusaders." In referring to ourselves as "Crusaders" we acknowledge the current terrorists are correct, which only serves to reinforce terroristic acts. In our daily conversations with clients around what's going on in the world, we must not only protect innocent Muslims from being stereotyped, but we must not promote the idea that since Christians, or what ever group it may be, that there is any moral equivalence based on past misdeeds; therefore, terrorism is alright now. It is the Islamic extremists who are terrorizing many in the world today -- not any other group. As counselors, let's not forget that. Terrorism, no matter who does it, is not justified.
Bibliography
1. D’Andrea, M.J. The relevance of the u.s. government’s torture program for aca and its divisions. Alexandra, VA: American Counseling Association. Accessed: 12/22/14 http://community.counseling.org/communities/community-home/viewthread/?GroupId=433&MessageKey=e26f0568-b2b7-4fb0-acc6-277b028a9a92&tab=digestviewer#bm0
2. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Study of the cia’s detention and interrogation program. Washington, D.C.: United States Senate. Accessed: 12/31/14 http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014.html
3. Author Unknown. (2011). Timeline: How anthrax terror unfolded. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio. Accessed: 12/29/14. http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/93170200/timeline-how-the-anthrax-terror-unfolded
4. Ensor, D. (2001). Al qaeda interested in ‘dirty bomb’ says us: Device called a crude nuclear weapon designed to terrify. Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network Accessed: 12/29/14 http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/04/ret.nuclear.report/
5. Avlon, J. (2011). Forty-five terror plots foiled since 9/11. NY: The Daily Beast. Accessed: 1/3/15. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/08/9-11-anniversary-45-terror-plots-foiled-in-last-10-years.html
5. Kelley, M. (2014). Video of the kelley file interview with dr. james mitchell. NY: Fox News Channel via You Tube. Accessed: 12/23/14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpIGr8w85Y
6. Office of Assistant Attorney General (2005). Memorandum for john a rizzo: Senior deputy general counsel, central intelligence agency. Washington, D.C. United States Department of Justice. Accessed: 1/1/15. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/legacy/2013/10/21/memo-bradbury2005.pdf
7. Staff. (2014). Cia eit ‘architect:’ ksm told me liberal media was america’s weakness. People’s Pundit Daily. Accessed: 12/29/14. http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2014/12/16/cia-eit-architect-ksm-told-me-liberal-media-was-americas-weakness/
8. Office of Inspector General. (2004). Counterterrorism and detention activities (September 2001 – October 2003). Washington, D.C.: United States Central Intelligence Agency. Accessed: 12/29/14. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20090825-DETAIN/2004CIAIG.pdf
9. Sheets, C.A. (2014). Cia torture report unlikely to lead to new prosecutions. International Business Times. http://www.ibtimes.com/cia-torture-report-unlikely-lead-new-prosecutions-punishment-1745552
10. Brennan, J. (2014). Statement from director brennan on the ssci study on the former detention and interrogation program. Washington, D.C.: United States Central Intelligence Agency. Accessed: 12/26/14. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2014-press-releases-statements/statement-from-director-brennan-on-ssci-study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html
11. Bradner, E. (2014). Former bush officials defend interrogation tactics. (with nbc video). Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network. Accessed: 12/22/14 http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/politics/torture-report-reaction-roundup/
12. Author Unknown (n.d.) Early history of terrorism – terror in antiquity: 1st-14th century a.d. Terrorism Research. Accessed: 12/28/14. http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php
13. Phares, W. (2006). Phares featured in homeland security today on “future jihad.” Washington, D.C.: Walid Phares. Accessed: 1/11/15. http://walidphares.net/artman/publish/Reviews_of_Books_6/Phares_featured_in_Homeland_Security_Today_on_Futu_939.shtml
14. Malzberg, S. (2015). Steve malzberg show: Interview with brigitte gabriel. (video via You Tube). West Palm Beach, FL: NewsMax Media Inc. Accessed: 1/11/15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIHk-svnHg
15. Author Unknown. (2015). A brief history of the Crusades. Different Spirit. Accessed: 1/11/15. http://www.differentspirit.org/resources/crusades.php
16. Zalman, A. (n.d.) A guide to the irish republican army: Understanding the ira. About News. Accessed: 1/11/15 http://terrorism.about.com/od/groupsleader1/p/IRA.htm
17. Author Unknown. (2014). Terrorism in historical perspective. Houston, TX: Digital History. Accessed: 1/11/15. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=94
18. Ehrenfeld, R. (2002). Funding terrorism: Sources and methods. Confronting Terrorism. pp. 391-398. Accessed: 1/11/15. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/lanl/funding_terror.pdf
19. Author Unknown. (2013). Kidnapping for ransom as a source for terrorism funding. CSS Analysis in Security Policy. October No. 141. pp. 1-4
20. McCardle, G. (2012). Murder, torture, and religion. Skeptoid. Accessed: 12/30/14. http://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/06/01/murder-torture-and-religion/
21. Beir, J. (2014). Four more gitmo terrorists returned to battlefield. Washington, D.C.: Weekly Standard. Accessed: 12/31/14. http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Recidivism
22. Jones, S. (2015). Wh: ‘Only 6 percent’ of obama’s gitmo releases have rejoined the fight. Reston, VA: Cybercast News Service. Accessed: 1/19/15. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/wh-only-6-percent-obamas-gitmo-releases-have-rejoined-fight
23. Nussbaum, M.C. (2000). The costs of tragedy: Some limits of cost-benefit analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies. 29(2): pp. 1005-1036. Accessed: 01/06/15. http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/nussbaum/The%20Costs%20of%20Tragedy.pdf
24. Department of Ethics. (2014). Code of ethics. pp 21. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Accessed: 3/29/14. http://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/2014-aca-code-of-ethics.pdf?sfvrsn=4
25. Daniels, J.A. (2015). Re: The relevance of the u.s. government's torture program for aca and its divisions. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Accessed: 1/17/15. http://community.counseling.org/communities/community-home/viewthread/?GroupId=433&MessageKey=abc72d25-a4d2-45f4-92c9-d506004dc760&tab=digestviewer#bm4
26. Goodman, A., & Matē, A. (2014). After duo created cia torture methods, did world’s largest group of psychologists enable abuses? (video interview with text). NYNY: Democracy Now! Accessed: 1/8/15. http://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/16/after_duo_created_cia_torture_methods
27. Karimi, F., & Abubaker, A. (2015). Nine days later, bodies still litter bushes from boko haram’s ‘deadliest’ massacre. (text and video). Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network. Accessed: 1/13/15. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/12/africa/boko-haram-deadliest-attack/