Experts question documentary’s claims
By Dion Nissenbaum - McClatchy Newspapers
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Jerusalem — The Academy Award-winning director behind “Titanic” and “The Terminator” is attempting to challenge fundamental tenets of Christianity by suggesting that Jesus may have been a father whose body was buried far from the Jerusalem tomb where believers say he rose from the dead.
In a documentary set to air Sunday, Hollywood filmmaker James Cameron and his team contend they’ve produced new evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered a son named Judah.
Biblical experts and archaeologists who are familiar with the central evidence instantly discounted the claim, which Discovery Channel has touted as possibly “the greatest archaeological find in history,” as an ill-informed, recycled publicity grab.
The chances that the findings in “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” are real “are more than remote,” Israel Museum curator David Mevorah said. “They are closer to fantasy.”
If proved true, the findings would undercut Christian beliefs that Jesus never had children and that he rose from the dead. The documentary also contradicts long-held beliefs by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians that Jesus had lain in a tomb around which Christians built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Old City of Jerusalem.
“It doesn’t get bigger than this,” Cameron said before the basic findings were presented Monday at a New York news conference. “We’ve done our homework; we’ve made the case, and now it’s time for the debate to begin.”
The Discovery Channel documentary and an accompanying book center on a 2,000-year-old limestone tomb that was discovered more than a quarter-century ago during a construction project in a residential Jerusalem neighborhood between the Old City and Bethlehem.
When the tomb was uncovered in 1980, specialists were called. The man who led the effort was Amos Kloner, an archaeologist from Bar Ilan University, who meticulously documented the findings.
The tomb contained 10 limestone burial boxes and scattered bones. Among the inscriptions found on the ancient caskets: Jesus, son of Joseph; Mary; and Judah, son of Jesus.
Five of the burial boxes, known as ossuaries, had names that could be linked to the Bible, including versions of Joseph and Matthew.
Then and now, Kloner took no note of the names, saying they were common among residents of the area at the time.
But Discovery hired a statistician who concluded that the chances that this was the tomb of Jesus and his family were 600 to 1.
Mevorah called the statistical analysis “a good trick.” While the collection of names might seem compelling, Mevorah said the names were popular at the time and that another ossuary with the inscription “Jesus, son of Joseph” is on display in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., as part of a traveling exhibition of early Christian artifacts.
“Statistics can bring empires down or build them up,” he said. “But I wouldn’t build a theory of the most important person of the first century on statistics.”
The documentary used DNA testing on samples taken from the ossuary for Jesus and a second for Mary to show that the two sets of bones weren’t related, evidence the television researchers said indicated that the two probably were married.
The documentary suggests that the ossuary labeled Judah, son of Jesus, may have carried the bones of their son, though the researchers make no mention of doing DNA testing on that box.
After watching a review copy of the documentary, Kloner criticized it as little more than a publicity stunt.
“The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any new idea. It is only an attempt to sell,” Kloner said. “It’s a waste of money.”
No matter what the truth may be, the documentary is certain to fuel a surge in populist religious skepticism best exemplified by the wildly successful novel and film “The Da Vinci Code.” The Dan Brown mystery centered on theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that she was pregnant when he was crucified.

Medical Ethics and the Interrogation of Guantanamo

by Steven Miles.

The American Journal of Bioethics 7(1):W3
Abstract

The controversy over abusive interrogations of prisoners during the war against terrorism spotlights the need for clear ethics norms requiring physicians and other clinicians to prevent the mistreatment of prisoners. Although policies and general descriptions pertaining to clinical oversight of interrogations in United States’ war on terror prisons have come to light, there are few public records detailing the clinical oversight of an interrogation. A complaint by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) led to an Army investigation of an interrogation at the United States prison at Guantanamo Bay. The declassified Army investigation and the corresponding interrogation log show clinical supervision, monitoring and treatment during an interrogation that employed dogs, prolonged sleep deprivation, humiliation, restraint, hypothermia and compulsory intravenous infusions. The interrogation and the involvement of a psychologist, physician and medics violate international and medical norms for the treatment of prisoners.
Main Text
The controversy over clinical collaboration with the interrogational abuse of prisoners during the war against terrorism has renewed interest on the ethics of military clinicians working in prisoner of war facilities. A large literature describes human rights abuses in United States’ war on terror prisons and the origin and content of interrogation policies. These policies originated with senior White House, Department of Justice and Department of Defense officials, specified how to stress prisoners during interrogation and were passed down the chain of command to poorly trained and supervised Army interrogators (Fay 2004; Greenberg and Dratel 2005; Margulies 2006).

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s directed that “interrogations must always be planned deliberate actions that take into account a detainee’s emotional and physical strengths and weaknesses [and] . . . manipulate the detainees emotions and weaknesses to gain his willing cooperation” (Rumsfeld 2003, 5). To this end, General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the detention centers at Guantanamo, created Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs), which he defined as, “teams comprised of operational psychologists and psychiatrists [. . . ] essential in developing integrated interrogation strategies and assessing interrogation intelligence production” (Miller 2003, 5). The BSCTs, “biscuits” as they were colloquially called, reported to intelligence officials who were ultimately responsible for approving interrogational plans and who determined what information was to be solicited from the prisoner (Bloche and Marks 2005; Physicians for Human Rights 2005).

BSCTs in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay were chaired by a psychiatrist or psychologist, and advised on how to exploit the prisoners’ emotional and physical vulnerabilities and how to monitor the success of the interrogation (Miles 2006). BSCT personnel suggested how to stress, coerce and offer incentives in order to secure information. These behavioral science clinicians designed a two-pronged approach to break the prisoners down. The first was an attack on the cultural self of the Islamic men. As Guantanamo’s Muslim Chaplain James Yee put it, “Islam is not just a religion; it is a way of life” (Yee 2005, 110). Yee observed that Islamic identity became the most important weapon against the prisoners: prayer times were disrupted, the Koran was handled disrespectfully, and Islamic rules regarding decent interactions between men and womenwere violated (Yee 2005, 100-117). The second approach aimed at a prisoner’s personal vulnerabilities, sometimes using information from the prisoner’s medical record (Miles 2006, 55–65). Rumsfeld’s policy also called for “qualified medical personnel” to be present or available during harsh interrogations (Rumsfeld 2003). Defense Department documents describe the policies and the clinical vetting and monitoring of interrogations (Miles 2006, 43–67). However, such investigations generally focus on patterns of abuse rather than on elucidating the specific roles of clinicians in individual interrogations.
Ironically, most of Guantanamo Bay prisoners either had no intelligence value or were innocent of Al-Qaeda, Taliban or insurgency activity (Denbeaux et al. 2006).

The Interrogation of Prisoner 063

Two government documents detail medical and psychological participation with the interrogation of Prisoner 063, Mohammed al-Qahtani, at Guantanamo Bay between November 23, 2002 and January 11, 2003 (Zagorin and Duffy 2005). The first is an 83-page interrogation log (ORCON 2003). The second is an Army investigation of complaints of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, including Prisoner 063 (United States Army 2005, 13–21). The third and fourth are notes taken in relation to that Army investigation (CTD Fly Team 2006; GITMO Investigation 2004). The second set of these notes extensively describes medical collaboration with one or more interrogations but the record is so heavily redacted that it is not possible to determine which, if any, of this material described the interrogation of Prisoner 063 (GITMO Investigation 2004).

According to the Army investigation, the log covers a period in the middle of al-Qahtani’s interrogation that began in the summer of 2002 and continued into 2003. For eleven days, beginning November 23, al-Qahtani was interrogated for twenty hours each day by interrogators working in shifts. He was kept awake with music, yelling, loud white noise or brief opportunities to stand. He then was subjected to eighty hours of nearly continuous interrogation until what was intended to be a 24-hour “recuperation.” This recuperation was entirely occupied by a hospitalization for hypothermia that had resulted from deliberately abusive use of an air conditioner. Army investigators reported that al-Qahtani’s body temperature had been cooled to 95 to 97 degrees Fahrenheit (35 to 36.1 degrees Celsius) and that his heart rate had slowed to thirty-five beats per minute. While hospitalized, his electrolytes were corrected and an ultrasound did not find venous thrombosis as a cause for the swelling of his leg. The prisoner slept through most of the 42-hour hospitalization after which he was hooded, shackled, put on a litter and taken by ambulance to an interrogation room for twelve more days of interrogation, punctuated by a few brief naps. He was then allowed to sleep for four hours before being interrogated for ten more days, except for naps of up to an hour. He was allowed 12 hours of sleep on January 1, but for the next eleven days, the exhausted and increasingly non-communicative prisoner was only allowed naps of one to four hours as he was interrogated. The log ends with a discharge for another “sleep period.”

Medical Treatment during Interrogation

Clinicians regularly visited the interrogation cell to assess and treat the prisoner. Medics and a female “medical representative” checked vital signs several times per day; they assessed for dehydration and suggested enemas for constipation or intravenous fluids for dehydration. The prisoner’s hands and feet became swollen as he was restrained in a chair. These extremities were inspected and wrapped by medics and a physician. One entry describes a physician checking “for abrasions from sitting in the metal chair for long periods of time. The doctor said everything was good.” Guards, medics and a physician offered palliative medications such as aspirin to treat his swollen feet.

Intravenous fluids were regular administered over the prisoner’s objection. For example, on November 24, the prisoner refused water. A Captain-interrogator advised him that the medic “can administer IV [sic: the log’s contraction for intravenous fluids of an unspecified volume is used throughout this article] fluids once the Captain and the Doctor on duty are notified and agree to it.” Nine hours later, after taking vital signs, medical personnel administered “two bags” of intravenous fluids. Later that day, a physician evaluated al-Qahtani in the interrogation room and told him that he could not refuse medications or intravenous fluids, and that he would not be allowed to die.

The next day, interrogators told the prisoner that he would not be allowed to pray if he would not drink water. Neither a medic nor a physician could insert a standard intravenous catheter, so a physician inserted a “temporary shunt” to allow an intravenous infusion. The restrained prisoner asked to go the bathroom and was given a urinal instead. Thirty minutes later, he was given “three and one-half bags of IV [sic]” and he urinated twice in his pants. The next day, the physician came to the interrogation room and checked the restrained prisoner’s swollen extremities and the shunt. The shunt was removed and a soldier told al-Qahtani that he could pray on the floor where he had urinated.

From December 12 to 14, al-Qahtani’s weight went from 119 to 130 pounds (54 to 59 kilograms) after being given six IVs. On December 14, al-Qahtani’s pulse was 42 beats per minute. A physician was consulted by phone and said that “operations” could continue since there had been no significant change. Al-Qahtani received three more IVs on the December 15 and complained of costophrenic pain. A physician came to the interrogation cell, examined him, made a presumptive diagnosis of kidney stones and instructed the prisoner to take fluids. The next day blood was drawn in the cell.

Psychological Treatment During Interrogation

In October 2002, before the time covered by the log, Army investigators found that dogs were brought to the interrogation room to growl, bark and bare their teeth at al-Qahtani. The investigators noted that a BSCT psychologist witnessed the use of the dog, Zeus, during at least one such instance, an incident deemed properly authorized to “exploit individual phobias.” FBI agents, however, objected to the use of dogs and withdrew from at least one session in which dogs were used.

Major L., a psychologist who chaired the BSCT at Guantanamo, was noted to be present at the start of the interrogation log. On November 27, he suggested putting the prisoner in a swivel chair to prevent him from fixing his eyes on one spot and thereby avoiding the guards. On December 11, al-Qahtani asked to be allowed to sleep in a room other than the one in which he was being fed and interrogated. The log notes that “BSCT” advised the interrogators that the prisoner was simply trying to gain control and sympathy.

Many psychological “approaches” or “themes” were repetitively used. These included: “Failure/Worthless,” “Al Qaeda Falling Apart,” “Pride Down,” “Ego Down,” “Futility,” “Guilt/Sin Theme (with Evidence/Circumstantial Evidence,” etc. Al-Qahtani was shown videotapes entitled “Taliban Bodies” and “Die Terrorist Die.” Some scripts aimed at his Islamic identity bore names such as “Good Muslim,” “Bad Muslim,” “Judgment Day,” “God’s Mission” and “Muslim in America.” Al-Qahtani was called “unclean” and “Mo” [for Mohammed]. He was lectured on the true meaning of the Koran, instruction that especially enraged him when done by female soldiers. He was not told, despite asking, that some of the interrogation took place during Ramadan, a time when Moslems have special obligations. He was not allowed to honor prayer times. The Koran was intentionally and disrespectfully placed on a television (an authorized control measure) and a guard “unintentionally” squatted over it while harshly addressing the prisoner.

Transgressions against Islamic and Arab mores for sexual modesty were employed. The prisoner was forced to wear photographs of “sexy females” and to study sets of such photographs to identify whether various pictures of bikini-clad women were of the same or a different person. He was told that his mother and sister were whores. He was forced to wear a bra, and a woman’s thong was put on his head. He was dressed as a woman and compelled to dance with a male interrogator. He was told that he had homosexual tendencies and that other prisoners knew this. Although continuously monitored, interrogators repeatedly strip-searched him as a “control measure.” On at least one occasion, he was forced to stand naked with women soldiers present. Female interrogators seductively touched the prisoner under the authorized use of approaches called “Invasion of Personal Space” and “Futility.” On one occasion, a female interrogator straddled the prisoner as he was held down on the floor.

Other degrading techniques were logged. His head and beard were shaved to show the dominance of the interrogators. He was made to stand for the United States national anthem. His situation was compared unfavorably to that of banana rats in the camp. He was leashed (a detail omitted in the log but recorded by investigators) and made to “stay, come, and bark to elevate his social status up to a dog.” He was told to bark like a happy dog at photographs of 9/11 victims and growl at pictures of terrorists. Some psychological routines referred to the 9/11 attacks. He was shown pictures of the attacks, and photographs of victims were affixed to his body. The interrogators held one exorcism (and threatened another) to purge evil Jinns that the disoriented, sleep deprived prisoner claimed were controlling his emotions. The interrogators quizzed him on passages from a book entitled, “What makes a Terrorist and Why?,” that asserted that people joined terrorist groups for a sense of belonging and that terrorists must dehumanize their victims as a way to avoid feelings of guilt at their crimes.

Discussion

Clinicians were integral to this abusive interrogation. Medics regularly assessed al-Qahtani’s vital signs, hydration, skin integrity and constipation. They attended to edema that appears to have resulted from a combination of prolonged restraint, recumbency and (perhaps) nutritional insufficiency. Physicians came to the interrogation cell to assess or treat dehydration, inanition, pain, edema and potential trauma from prolonged restraint to a metal chair. A physician told interrogators over the telephone that interrogation could continue despite bradycardia. Inpatient clinicians treated hypothermia-induced bradycardia and returned him to the interrogators. The Behavioral Science Consultation Team and its psychologist Chair oversaw the interrogation, including the use of a military dog to threaten the prisoner, and directly suggested responses to the prisoner’s requests and actions.

The Army investigation, instigated by an FBI complaint rather than by clinicians, focused on whether the interrogation techniques were authorized by Defense Department policy. The investigators found that the prolonged sleep deprivation was authorized. Cooling with an air conditioner was authorized “environmental manipulation.” Notwithstanding bradycardia requiring hospitalization, the investigators asserted, “There are no medical entries indicating the subject . . . ever experienced medical problems related to low body temperature” (Bashour, Gualberto and Ryan 1989). Investigators noted a second episode of bradycardia in February 2003 after the period covered by interrogation log. Army investigators found no evidence that al-Qahtani was ever physically assaulted and pointed out that medical records did not find evidence of physical assault or “medical conditions of note.” They concluded that there was “no evidence that [al-Qahtani] . . . was subjected to humiliation intentionally directed at his religion.” They found that the cumulative effect of this “creative, aggressive, and persistent” interrogation was “degrading and abusive” but did not constitute “torture” or “inhumane” treatment but did not define distinctions between these words. Not finding torture or inhumane treatment, the Army recommended closing the investigation.

Defense Department officials defend this interrogation as conducted according to a “very detailed plan” by “trained professionals in a controlled environment, with active supervision and oversight” (Department of Defense 2005). They allege that al-Qahtani was the twentieth hijacker who provided valuable intelligence about Al Qaeda operations and 9/11 planning, and that he identified “about 30” bin Laden bodyguards held at Guantanamo. No trials are known to have resulted from this information, however, and al-Qahtani professes to be a broken man who gave false information under pressure (Zagorin 2006).

International law squarely prohibits this kind of interrogation. The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states,
Persons . . . placed hors de combat by . . . detention shall in all circumstances be treated humanely ... To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever . . . (c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; … No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind (Geneva Convention 1949).
Similarly, the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture defines “torture” as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, ... at the instigation of . . . a public official” (United Nations General Assembly 1984). Although the United States Supreme Court upheld the Geneva Convention in its Hamdan decision (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S. Ct. 2633 [2004]), the recently enacted Military Commissions Act denies prisoners the right to invoke the Geneva provisions (Military Commissions Act of 2006).

Numerous ethics codes proscribe medical complicity with harsh interrogation. In response to public outcry against clinical participation in coercive interrogations at war on terror prisons, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association have endorsed more stringent codes for military clinicians who are asked to participate in interrogation (Table 1). The American Psychological Association (APA) has taken a different tack and allows psychologists to assist in military interrogations (APA 2006). Although it bars psychologists from assisting in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, its restrictive definition of those terms follows the United States’ reservations to the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture (APA Council of Representatives 2006). The APA asserts that psychologists are trained to detect and prevent “behavioral drift” that can lead to unethical interrogations (Behnke 2006). This optimistic view of behavioral clinicians is contradicted by many examples of psychologists and psychiatrists who have collaborated with torture in diverse countries.


Table 1. Selected Excerpts from Medical Ethics Codes and Conventions Addressing Clinicians Roles in Interrogation.

United Nations General Assembly. Principles of Medical Ethics Relevant to the Protection of Prisoners Against Torture
(1982).
It is a gross contravention of medical ethics, . . . for health personnel, particularly physicians, to [1] engage, actively or passively, in acts which constitute participation in, complicity in, incitement to or attempts to commit torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, . . . [2] be involved in any professional relationship with prisoners or detainees the purpose of which is not solely to evaluate, protect or improve their physical and mental health, . . . [3] (a) apply their knowledge and skills in order to assist in the interrogation of prisoners . . . in a manner that may adversely affect the physical or mental health or condition of such prisoners . . . ; (b) certify, or to participate in the certification of, the fitness of prisoners . . . for any form of treatment or punishment that may adversely affect their physical or mental health . . . or to participate in any way in the infliction of any such treatment or punishment . . . , [4] participate in any procedure for restraining a prisoner . . . unless such a procedure is determined in accordance with purely medical criteria as being necessary for the protection of the physical or mental health or the safety of the prisoner or detainee himself . . . and presents no hazard to his physical or mental health.

World Medical Association. Guidelines for Medical Doctors concerning Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in relation to Detention and Imprisonment, [Declaration of Tokyo] (1975).

The doctor’s fundamental role is to alleviate the distress of his or her fellow men, and no motive whether personal, collective or political shall prevail against this higher purpose.

The doctor shall not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures, whatever the offence of which the victim of such procedure is suspected, accused or guilty, and whatever the victim’s belief or motives, and in all situations, including armed conflict and civil strife.

The doctor shall not provide any premises, instruments, substances or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to diminish the ability of the victim to resist such treatment. The doctor shall not be present during any procedure during which torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are used or threatened.

American Psychiatric Association (2006).

No psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of persons held in custody . . . . Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees. However, psychiatrists may provide training to military or civilian investigative or law enforcement personnel on recognizing and responding to persons with mental illnesses, on the possible medical and psychological effects of particular techniques and conditions of interrogation, and on other areas within their professional expertise.

American Medical Association (2006).

Physicians must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation, because a role as physician-interrogator undermines the physicians’ role as healer and thereby erodes trust in both the individual physician-interrogator and in the medical profession. Physicians should not monitor interrogations with the intention of intervening in the process, because this constitutes direct participation in interrogation. Physicians may participate in developing effective interrogation strategies that are not coercive but are humane and respect the rights of individuals. When physicians have reason to believe that interrogations are coercive, they must report their observations to the appropriate authorities. If authorities are aware of coercive interrogations but have not intervened, physicians are ethically obligated to report the offenses to independent authorities that have the power to investigate or adjudicate such allegations.

Royal College of Psychiatrists (2006).

The Royal College of Psychiatrists welcomes the following statements in the Surgeon General’s Policy Letter Medical Support to Persons Detained by UK Forces whilst on Operations:

a. “It is a gross contravention of medical ethics, as well as an offence under applicable international instruments and UK law for health personnel, particularly registered medical practitioners, to engage, actively or passively, in acts which constitute participation in, complicity in, incitement to or attempts to commit torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

b. “Health personnel are only to be involved in professional relationships with prisoners or detainees for the purposes of evaluating, protecting or improving their physical and mental health.”

c. “Health personnel are not to: i. Apply their knowledge and skills in order to assist in the interrogation of prisoners and detainees in a manner that may adversely affect their physical or mental health; this includes certifying or stating that a detainee meets a specific mental or physical standard for interrogation. ii. Certify, or to participate in the certification of, the fitness of prisoners or detainees for any form of treatment or punishment that may adversely affect their physical or mental health, or to participate in any way in the infliction of any such treatment or punishment. iii. Question detainees about matters unless they are relevant to their medical care.”


The diverse clinical societies’ ethics codes should be harmonized and unequivocally grounded on the standards in international laws like the Geneva Convention. In this way, the United States medical community would express its accountability to international law and be able to call upon foreign governments and medical communities to do likewise.

In that the al-Qahtani interrogation is a case report, limited inferences can be drawn. However, it does comport with the larger literature on clinical involvement with interrogations in war on terror prisons. Al-Qahtani was an important suspect; undoubtedly, his interrogation was especially, although not uniquely, harsh. Less severe interrogations used similar techniques and also involved clinicians. The Defense Department could address concerns about interrogations and clinicians by declassifying more logs. Such logs do not contain national security data. Medical societies have not called for an independent assessment of the clinical roles during interrogations.

This interrogation illuminates the flaw in the Defense Department’ policy that proposes a distinction between the ethical duties of clinicians who treat a prisoner and those who assist interrogators (Assistant Secretary of Defense 2005; Department of Defense 2006). It is untenable to propose that 063’s hospital physician had a duty to treat hypothermic bradycardia and accommodate the interrogational clinician who supervised the “environmental manipulation.” The physician in the interrogation cell who ordered parenteral fluids over the prisoner’s objection did not simply treat a dehydrated patient, he or she prolonged a harsh interrogation. The psychologist who oversaw the use of dogs, sleep deprivation and culturally-targeted humiliation was using clinical insights and the tools of behavioral science to break a prisoner down rather than to establish rapport for cross cultural negotiation. Al-Qahtani had no treating psychologist. This problem is not resolved by simplistically invoking “dual loyalty ethics.” In this situation, dual loyalty ethics, like international law, obliges the clinicians who work in environments pressuring them to do otherwise to hold the wellbeing of their imprisoned patients as their primary obligation (International Dual Loyalty Working Group 2002).


References

American Medical Association. 2006. AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Statement on interrogation of prisoners. July 7, 2006. Available online at http://pn.psychiatryonline/. org/cgi/content/full/41/13/4-a. Accessed on January 30, 2006.

American Psychiatric Association. 2006. Psychiatric participation in interrogation of detainees. May 21, 2006.Available online at http:// www.psych.org/edu/other res/libarchives/archives/200601.pdf. Accessed on January 30, 2006.

American Psychological Association. 2005. Report of Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. Jul. 5 2005. Available online at Http://www.apa.org/releases/pens0705.html. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

American Psychological Association Council of Representatives. 2006. American Psychological Association 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Aug. 9, 2006. Available online at http://www.apa.org/convention06/notortureres.html. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2005. Medical program principles and procedures for the protection and treatment of detainees in the custody of the armed forces of the United States. Jun. 3, 2005. Available online at http://www.phrusa.org/research/ torture/pdf/dodpolicy.pdf. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

Bashour, T. T., A. Gualberto, and C. Ryan. 1989. Atrioventricular block in accidental hypothermia—a case report. Angiology 40: 63-66.

Behnke, S. 2006. Ethics and interrogations: Comparing and contrasting the American Psychological, American Medical and American Psychiatric Association positions. Monitor on Psychology 37: 66.

Bloche, M. G., and J. H. Marks. 2005. Doctors and interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. New England Journal of Medicine 353: 6–8.

CTD Fly Team. 2006. Interviews [declassified June 19, 2006]. Available online at http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/legaldocuments/july docs/(M)%20SCHMIDT-FURLOW%20DEFERRED.pdf. Accessed on January 30, 2006.

Denbeaux, M., J. Denbeaux, D. Gratz, J. Gregorek, M. Darby, S. Edwards, S. Hartman, D. Mann, and H. Skinner. 2006. Report on Guantanamo detainees: A profile of 517 detainees through analysis of Department of Defense data. Feb. 8, 2006. Available online at http://www.cfr.org/publication/9838/seton hall.html. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

Department of Defense. 2005. Guantanamo provides valuable intelligence information. News Release 592-05, June 12, 2005. Available online at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050612-3661.html. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

Department of Defense. 2006. Medical program support for detainee operations. June 6, 2006. Available online at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231008%20060606/231008p.pdf. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

Fay, G. R. 2004. Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention facility and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Aug. 2004. Available online at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/d20040825fay.pdf. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

Geneva Convention. 1949. Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. August 12, 1949. Available online at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

GITMO Investigation. 2004. AR 15-6 report. FBI allegations of Abuse. Available online at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/061906/Schmidt FurlowEnclosures.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2007.

Greenberg, K. J., and J. L. Dratel (eds). 2005. The torture papers: The road to Abu Ghraib. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

International Dual Loyalty Working Group. 2002. Dual loyalty and human rights in health professional practice: Proposed guidelines and institutional mechanisms. Boston, MA: Physicians for Human Rights.

Margulies J. 2006. Guantanamo and the abuse of Presidential power. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Miles, S. H. 2006. Oath betrayed: Torture, medical complicity and the War on Terror. New York, NY: Random House.

Military Commissions Act of 2006. Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006).Available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/∼c109yhxf7a:: Acccessed on January 30, 2007.

Miller, G. 2003. Assessment of DOD counterterrorism interrogation and detention operations in Iraq. Sep. 9, 2003. Available online at http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/AbuGhraib/Abu3.pdf. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

ORCON [Authoring agency classified by Originator Control]. 2003. Interrogation log Detainee 063. Available online at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1169322,00.html. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

Physicians for Human Rights. 2005. Break them down: Systematic use of psychological torture by US Forces. Available online at http://www.physiciansforhumanrights.com/research/torture/pdf/psych torture.pdf. Accessed on January 30, 2006.

Royal College of Psychiatrists. 2006. Resolution condemning psychiatric participation in the interrogation of detainees, whether in military or civilian settings. Annual Meeting 2006. Glasgow, Scotland. July 12, 2006. Available online at http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pressparliament/pressreleases2006/pr825.aspx. Accessed on January 30, 2006.

Rumsfeld, D. R. 2003. Memorandum for the Commander, US Southern Command; Counter resistance techniques in the War on Terrorism. Apr. 16, 2003. Available online at http://www.gwu.edu/∼nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/03.04.16.pdf. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

United Nations General Assembly. 1982. Principles of medical ethics relevant to the protection of prisoners against torture. Dec. 18, 1982. Available online at http://www.cioms/. ch/1983 texts of guidelines.htm. Accessed on October 30, 2006.

United Nations General Assembly. 1984. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Dec. 10, 1984. Available online at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h cat39.htm. Accessed on January 30, 2007.

Obama stakes his claim to history
Campaign launched from Abe Lincoln’s home town
Sarah Baxter, Washington
AS Barack Obama officially launched his campaign for president in Springfield, Illinois, the home town of Abraham Lincoln, his team was quietly beefing up his security. Mindful of the fate of the 19th-century president, who abolished slavery and was assassinated, friends say that new measures are being taken to ensure Obama’s protection on the campaign trail.
At the Old State Capitol building, comparisons with the gaunt, top-hatted president were inescapable. Springfield is where Obama, like Lincoln, served for eight years as a state legislator before entering national politics.
Thousands of eager spectators thronged the square in freezing temperatures waving Obama ’08 banners as he stepped on the stage and hugged his wife and young daughters, who were bundled up in hats and scarves.
Setting out what is likely to be his signature theme, he urged Americans: “Let’s be the generation” for change. “I know it’s a little chilly, but I’m fired up.”
No other Republican has Rudy Giuliani's star power yet he is receiving a lukewarm response from the party’s base
Obama, 45, chose the historic setting in an attempt to lay to rest accusations that he is too inexperienced to be president. He acknowledged there was a certain “presumptuousness” and “audacity” in staking his claim to the White House, but said: “I’ve been in Washington long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”
He believes his early opposition to the Iraq war — a major point of difference with his rival, Hillary Clinton — has vindicated his judgment. Calling Iraq the “war without end”, he said: “I opposed this war from the start, I thought it was a tragic mistake.” He called for combat troops to be brought home by March, 2008.
Alabama congressman Artur Davis, who first met Obama while they were law students at Harvard, said the Illinois senator would “electrify” the country. “It is a historic moment, because it is the first time that a candidate of African descent has entered the race with a strong chance of being successful.”
Obama was aware of the personal risks he was taking, Davis said. “He recognises that we have some very extreme elements in this country. His campaign is wisely not discussing their security precautions publicly, but they know Barack’s candidacy creates a dimension that is different to the others and are taking steps to deal with it.”
Born in Hawaii to a white mother from Kansas and a Kenyan father, Obama believes he is uniquely placed to offer America the hope of a society based on talent, not race.
“In the place of a politics that has divided us for too long, you believe that we can be one people,” he told the crowd.
Before formally entering the White House race, Obama said he was concerned about potential violence. “Being shot, obviously, that is the least attractive option,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times, and added that security was “something that is on [his wife] Michelle’s mind”.
Alma Powell, the wife of former secretary of state Colin Powell, was fearful for her husband’s safety when he was encouraged to run for president in the 1990s and is thought to have influenced his decision not to stand.
But Michelle Obama said in an interview to be broadcast on CBS television tonight: “I don’t lose sleep over it, because the realities are that . . . as a black man . . . Barack can get shot going to the gas station. You can’t make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen.”
Avis LaVelle, a Chicago friend of Michelle, said it was Obama’s ideas rather than his race that presented a danger. Citing the example of President John F Kennedy and his brother Robert, who were assassinated in the 1960s, she said: “These are perilous times for candidates. Think of the history of people who have stood for change and sparked this level of passion.” Michelle, 43, earns nearly twice her husband’s $165,200 (£85,000) Senate salary as vice-president for community affairs at the University of Chicago hospitals. The mother of two girls, Malia, 8, and Sasha, 5, she says she often feels like a single parent because Obama is away so often, but she makes sure he performs his share of household tasks.
According to LaVelle, Michelle would be an inspirational first lady. “She’s an incredibly compelling person in her own right — smart, loyal and very grounded. She’s also physically attractive and that makes a wonderful package.”
Obama said he was delighted to have the “100%” support of his wife. “We tend to be pretty private people, we don’t like a lot of fuss,” he said last week. “The difficulty in just going out and taking a walk or taking my kids to the zoo — the inability to do that is a major sacrifice, but we think the sacrifice is worth it.”
With half-brothers, sisters, cousins and inlaws scattered across America, Britain, the Far East and Africa, Obama said he has relatives that look like Bernie Mac, the black comedian, and “relatives who look like Marga-ret Thatcher”.
His race has already become a heated campaign issue. Asked by CBS television if he had decided to be black, Obama replied: “I’m not sure I decided it . . . If you look African-American in this society, you’re treated as an African-American.”
A majority of black voters currently favour the better-known Clinton, but Obama has the backing of Reverend Jesse Jackson, a former presidential candidate, whose daughter Santita is a childhood friend of Michelle.
“By the time the primaries roll around and significant black voter populations weigh in, Senator Obama will get the lion’s share of the black vote,” said Davis. “But he is going to have to compete for their votes just as Senator Clinton will have to compete for the women’s vote.”
The 2008 campaign is hotting up already, with Clinton touring the early primary state of New Hampshire this weekend. Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a Republican frontrunner, yesterday attended a key party rally in California.
Obama left Springfield immediately after his speech for a weekend swing through Iowa and Chicago and on to New Hampshire tomorrow. After a meteoric start to his early, unofficial campaign, his momentum has been checked by Clinton, who currently has a double-figure lead in the polls for the Democratic nomination.
He warned last week: “I learnt my politics in Chicago, a place not known for producing push-overs. If somebody goes at us, we’ll respond. I am not averse to drawing sharp contrasts between myself and other candidates.”
But he has been criticised for offering little more substance to his politics than the “audacity of hope”, the title of his recent number one bestseller.
“The truth of the matter is I probably have a more detailed and specific record of what I think and where I stand than any candidate in this race,” Obama said. “I’ve written two very detailed books that give people a pretty good window into my heart and soul. I’ve given policy speeches on just about every important issue that we face.”
In his speech, he vowed to introduce universal health care, reform education, free America from its dependence on oil and cap greenhouse gases. “Let’s be the generation that ends poverty in America,” he urged. He also recalled his bipartisan efforts to reform ethics in Congress and urged Americans to be “the generation that never forgets” the attacks of September 11 and is willing to “confront the terrorists with everything we’ve got”.
Conservative critics charge that Obama’s left-wing voting record in the Senate proves he is not the moderate politician he appears. His middle name — Hussein — is regularly invoked by political opponents and he has been falsely accused of attending a madrasah, a radical Islamic school, as a boy in Indonesia.
His own ethical standards have been questioned after he purchased land next door to his $1.6m family home from a shady Chicago friend and financier, who was indicted for trying to obtain nearly $5m in kickbacks from firms in Illinois. Obama was forced to disown the decision as “boneheaded”.
But he has been disarmingly open about his use of drugs, including cocaine, as a young man and last week vowed to kick his one remaining vice: smoking. He has also been frank about his absent father, a brilliant student who made it to Harvard University from Kenya but acquired multiple wives and drank too much before he died in a car crash in 1982.
His multi-faceted biography lends credence to his claim that he is a post-baby-boom politician who can rise above the cultural, religious and generational divides that have gripped America since the Vietnam era.
Donna Brazile, chairwoman of Al Gore’s campaign for president in 2000, said: “Hillary Clinton is a formidable, tough and hardworking politician, but Barack Obama has started a movement of ideas to transform the country. He can inspire us to go further like Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy and make the ideal of America come alive again.”
Clinton is seeking to amass an unprecedented war chest. Last week her team announced plans to raise $75m by the end of the year.
At a packed book-launch party last week in Washington for Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s energetic campaign chairman, the Democratic party establishment was feted as if it was already back at the White House. According to his publishers, the hotel that hosted the event spent $250,000 providing champagne, truffles, foie gras, suckling pigs, petits fours and vintage cognac free to guests in the hope of basking in Clinton’s glory.
It was a far cry from the $5, $10 and $25 pledges that Obama said he hoped to gather from “ordinary voters” on the internet. But he has already attracted the support of billion-aire financier George Soros, television star Oprah Winfrey and Hollywood celebrities.
Obama’s campaign is paying for security out of its own pocket as candidates only receive Secret Service protection if they win their party’s nomination.
With at least a year to go before the Democratic race is decided, one veteran of the Clinton White House said of Obama: “He has been riding a huge wave because he is a dream candidate, but what goes up goes down. The magic can only last so long without the organisation, money and nuts and bolts of a campaign that the Clinton camp is so good at.”
On reflection, he added: “He is no fluke either” — as the former first lady may soon discover.
Born to run
- Born in 1961 in Hawaii to a white mother from Kansas and a Kenyan father, who left when Obama was two
- Moved to Indonesia with his stepfather at six, attending Muslim and Catholic schools
- Raised by grandparents in Hawaii at 10 and educated at an elite private school
- Dabbled in marijuana and cocaine in his teens “to push questions of who I was out of my mind”
- Studied in Los Angeles and New York before becoming a community organiser in Chicago in mid1980s
- Returned to university and became the first African-American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review in 1990
- Baptised as an adult in Chicago at an “unashamedly black and unashamedly Christian church”
- Met Michelle Robinson at a Chicago law firm and married in 1992. She earns more than him n Has two daughters, Malia, 8, and Sasha, 5. Describes his multiracial family as a “mini United Nations”
- Elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996 and served for eight years
- Opposed the Iraq war in the run-up to the invasion in 2003
- Thrilled the Democratic National Convention in 2004 by saying: “In no other country on earth is my story even possible”
- Elected to the US Senate in 2004 with a landslide 70% of the vote
- Has five half-brothers and two half-sisters, including Auma Obama, who works in Berkshire

The Streetwalkers of San Francisco
By LAURA MILLER
Published: August 20, 2000
THE ROYAL FAMILY By William T. Vollmann. 780 pp. New York: Viking. $40.
THE word ''obsession'' is a favorite of the publicists who concoct book jacket copy and movie ads. It suggests untrammeled passions, erotic and otherwise, and all sorts of bad, dramatic, extreme behavior. We ought to know better than to fall for this, especially those of us who have ever acted as confidants to the obsessed. The reality of obsession -- its incessant return to the same few themes, scenarios and questions; its meticulous examination and re-examination of banal minutiae for hidden meanings that simply aren't there; the cancerous way an idee fixe usurps other, more interesting thoughts -- is that it is confining, not rebellious, and not fascinating but maddeningly dull.
The writer William T. Vollmann is obsessed with prostitution, especially the down-market end of the trade, and he has indulged that fixation in several books. His novels ''Whores for Gloria'' and ''Butterfly Stories'' are entirely devoted to the topic, depicting desperate men in pursuit of chimerical dream-hookers who they hope will become their wives. Call it a bad-boy double play: the Vollmann hero first breaks the rules of bourgeois propriety by trading money for sex without the veneer of romantic love, then he breaks the no-strings-attached rule of prostitution by professing eternal devotion. But in the case of both books, any frisson of insurrection remains mostly Vollmann's; as narratives, ''Whores for Gloria'' and ''Butterfly Stories'' are monotonous.
Fortunately, the author has journalistic and novelistic impulses as well as obsessive ones. He is also astonishingly prolific, so that readers uninterested in his hooker fiction can savor both the vivid international vignettes in ''The Atlas'' and the ambitious scope of his series of novels about the colonization of the Americas. For Vollmann is a writer of considerable talent, with an encyclopedic urge to document overheard conversations, bar-stool autobiographies, lumpen manifestoes and mad soliloquies, and an itch to tell the story of the world and its people in unprecedented ways.
All three of those impulses feed into Vollmann's mammoth new novel, ''The Royal Family.'' It's the story of Henry Tyler, a private detective nursing a penchant for the seedy side of life and an unrequited infatuation with the wife of his brother, John, a contemptuous contract attorney. Henry is hired by a crude tycoon named Brady to search the Tenderloin, San Francisco's skid row, for an underworld character called the Queen of the Whores. By the time he locates the Queen, his sister-in-law, Irene, has committed suicide, leaving Henry bereft and ripe for the harvesting. He joins the itinerant band of streetwalkers and outcasts who form the Queen's inner circle, and eventually he becomes her lover.
The Queen, at first a shadowy quest-object, turns out to be a black woman in her 40's, fond of the occasional crack pipe, with ''an old, old face'' and scarred and tattooed limbs -- hardly the stuff that dreams are made on. But she possesses supernatural powers. Not only does she command the love and loyalty of an assortment of drug-addled incorrigibles, but her saliva and other bodily fluids have ''a narcotic and almost psychotropic effect,'' soothing the throes of withdrawal. She tithes the earnings of her girls, bailing them out when they land in jail and magically exacting revenge on those who hurt them.
Her nemesis is Brady, who plans to build a virtual-reality brothel in Las Vegas called Feminine Circus (apparently his genius for business does not extend to names) and wants to enlist the Queen for reasons that are never very clear. Eventually he decides that a clean-up-the-streets campaign will give a boost to his intended franchise, and he sends teams of vigilantes out to terrorize the streetwalkers and capture the Queen for reasons that continue to be unclear but grow considerably more ominous. The Queen hints at a betrayal to come, at her own impending departure, and the improvised family begins to fracture.
''The Royal Family'' is rife with dualities, parallels and profane riffs on literary touchstones ranging from the Bible to Nabokov -- the kind of patterns eager undergraduates delight in fishing out of a text. The Queen, Henry, John, the dead Irene, the crass Brady, a belligerent streetwalker named Domino, a pedophile who both helps Henry and cruelly taunts him -- they all have the gaudy, flattened, symbolic quality of figures on tarot cards. At the same time, Vollmann covers himself by scoffing at his own devices. ''If this were a book I wouldn't even read the rest of it,'' Henry says when the Queen predicts that Domino will turn her in. ''Christ and Judas is what it is.''
But if readers get discouraged and abandon ''The Royal Family,'' it won't, I suspect, be on account of its overblown themes. Like Fellini's or Genet's, Vollmann's romanticism is so titanic and fantastical that, artfully deployed, it's capable of convincing a reader by sheer force. If the pantomime allegories of his novel stagger and ultimately collapse, it's because their carnival-stilt legs can't support the massive bulk of the book.
It is primarily Vollmann's own fixation on street prostitution that's to blame. On this subject, ''The Royal Family'' is positively corpulent with anecdote and detail, of which let the following be a representative example (although it's exceptional in being printable by this newspaper): ''Just that day on Ellis Street he'd met a stinking girl who lived in the Lincoln Hotel and who had begged him for money for epilepsy medicine, a favor he'd granted her; she'd said God bless you and kissed him with her reeking herpid lips; she'd said: If you ever need a woman. . . .''
Instead of a strategic handful of stories in which a woman with a decaying and infested body desperately hustles a drunken john for the pittance needed to score a rock of crack, Vollmann favors his readers with something more like 40 or 50. The novel is a cornucopia of bleeding orifices, abscessed legs, crusted secretions and fetid genitals. Even at the peak of their ''sisterhood'' the Queen's bickering followers prove themselves willing to lie, cheat and steal from one another for the sake of a fix. They remain addicts first and foremost, and once the reader's initial jolt of shock, pity, disgust or titillation wears off, they're just as boring as anyone else who does the same thing over and over again.
Although Vollmann's interest in squalor isn't new, in the past it has come across as a callow bohemian equation of misery with authenticity. In ''The Royal Family'' he seems to be probing his fixation, trying out the principle of transcendence through self-abasement. ''She was willingly and proudly embracing her own degradation, like a Christian on the cross,'' he writes of one of the Queen's followers. On the other hand, the Queen is no Christian. She describes Jesus as ''our enemy,'' and her adherents call themselves Canaanites: ''I saw that Mark of Cain on your forehead right away, that loser's mark,'' the pedophile tells Henry.
The result is a baffling muddle. At first, the novel seems to set up Feminine Circus as a sanitized and therefore bogus counterpart to the gritty truth of the Tenderloin; Brady's is a brothel in which no matter how perverse the doings, ''nobody gets hurt.'' Yet Vollmann, who bases his fiction on extensive interviews with streetwalkers, has always rather prided himself on acknowledging the terrible hurts of their lives: they are often in mortal danger; they hate the work; they're motivated solely by a punishing need for drugs. In that case, the virtual prostitution of Feminine Circus really does seem like an improvement. In order to correct the imbalance, the author comes up with the preposterous notion of making Feminine Circus a front for a white slave outfit in which men pay to have real, brutal sex with deformed retarded girls. But if abject degradation is the road to holiness, then wouldn't Brady's brothel be a vehicle of the sacred?
Henry pursues his own destiny by renouncing all possessions and taking a blessedly diverting hobo journey. The novel culminates in his fleeting recognition that the Queen and Irene were ''a double-sided incarnation of Something Else,'' an excuse to suffer guilt and hopeless yearning, rather than the cause of either feeling. The reader, having watched Henry marinate in self-pity for the past 760 pages, will probably have beaten him to that conclusion. In the end, the spectacle of this potentially fine novel crushed by the weight of its undisciplined author's compulsions is the book's best argument for stripping things down to essentials.
Laura Miller is an editor for the Internet magazine Salon.com.
More Articles in Books >

Definitions
The Racial Politics of Speaking Well
By LYNETTE CLEMETSON
WASHINGTON
SENATOR JOSEPH R. BIDEN’S characterization of his fellow Democratic presidential contender Senator Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” was so painfully clumsy that it nearly warranted pity.
There are not enough column inches on this page to parse interpretations of each of Mr. Biden’s chosen adjectives. But among his string of loaded words, one is so pervasive — and is generally used and viewed so differently by blacks and whites — that it calls out for a national chat, perhaps a national therapy session.
It is amazing that this still requires clarification, but here it is. Black people get a little testy when white people call them “articulate.”
Though it was little noted, on Wednesday President Bush on the Fox News Channel also described Mr. Obama as “articulate.” On any given day, in any number of settings, it is likely to be one of the first things white people warmly remark about Oprah Winfrey; Richard Parsons, chief executive of Time Warner; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Deval Patrick, the newly elected governor of Massachusetts; or a recently promoted black colleague at work.
A series of conversations about the word with a number of black public figures last week elicited the kind of frustrated responses often uttered between blacks, but seldom shared with whites.
“You hear it and you just think, ‘Damn, this again?’ ” said Michael Eric Dyson, a professor of humanities at the University of Pennsylvania.
Anna Perez, the former communications counselor for Ms. Rice when she was national security adviser, said, “You just stand and wonder, ‘When will this foolishness end?’ ”
Said Reginald Hudlin, president of entertainment for Black Entertainment Television: “It makes me weary, literally tired, like, ‘Do I really want to spend my time right now educating this person?’ ”
So what is the problem with the word? Whites do not normally object when it is used to describe them. And it is not as if articulate black people do not wish to be thought of as that. The characterization is most often meant as a form of praise.
“Look, what I was attempting to be, but not very artfully, is complimentary,” Mr. Biden explained to Jon Stewart on Wednesday on “The Daily Show.” “This is an incredible guy. This is a phenomenon.”
What faint praise, indeed. Being articulate must surely be a baseline requirement for a former president of The Harvard Law Review. After all, Webster’s definitions of the word include “able to speak” and “expressing oneself easily and clearly.” It would be more incredible, more of a phenomenon, to borrow two more of the senator’s puzzling words, if Mr. Obama were inarticulate.
That is the core of the issue. When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. It is similar to praising a female executive or politician by calling her “tough” or “a rational decision-maker.”
“When people say it, what they are really saying is that someone is articulate ... for a black person,” Ms. Perez said.
Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the “compliment” is notably different from other black people.
“Historically, it was meant to signal the exceptional Negro,” Mr. Dyson said. “The implication is that most black people do not have the capacity to engage in articulate speech, when white people are automatically assumed to be articulate.”
And such distinctions discount as inarticulate historically black patterns of speech. “Al Sharpton is incredibly articulate,” said Tricia Rose, professor of Africana Studies at Brown University. “But because he speaks with a cadence and style that is firmly rooted in black rhetorical tradition you will rarely hear white people refer to him as articulate.”
While many white people do not automatically recognize how, and how often, the word is applied, many black people can recall with clarity the numerous times it has stopped them in their tracks.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, said her first notable encounter with the word was back in high school in Chester, Va., when she was dating the school’s star football player. In post-game interviews and news stories she started to notice that he was always referred to as articulate.
“They never said that about the white quarterback,” she said, “yet they couldn’t help but say it about my boyfriend.”
William E. Kennard, a managing director of the Carlyle Group and a former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, recalled that in his days as partner at a Washington law firm in the early 1990s written reviews of prospective black hires almost always included the words, “articulate and poised.” The characterization was so consistent and in such stark contrast to the notes taken on white job applicants that he mentioned it to his fellow partners.
“It was a law firm; all of the people interviewing for jobs were articulate,” said Mr. Kennard, 50, who is also on the board of The New York Times Company. “And yet my colleagues seemed struck by that quality in black applicants.”
The comedian and actor D. L. Hughley, a frequent guest on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” says that every time he appears on the show, where he riffs on the political and social issues of the day, people walk up to him afterward and tell him how “smart and articulate” his comments were.
“Everyone was up in arms about Michael Richards using the N-word, but subtle words like this are more insidious,” Mr. Hughley said. “It’s like weight loss. The last few pounds are the hardest to get rid of. It’s the last vestiges of racism that are hard to get rid of.”
Sometimes the “articulate” moniker is merely implied. My colleague Rachel Swarns and I chuckle wearily about the number of times we have finished interviews or casual conversations with people — always white, more often male — only to have the person end the meeting with some version of the statement, “something about you reminds me of Condoleezza Rice.”
Neither Rachel nor I look anything like Ms. Rice, or each other for that matter, so the comparison is clearly not physical. The comment seems more a vocalized reach by the speaker for some sort of reference point, a context in which to understand us.
It is unlikely that whites will quickly or easily erase “articulate” and other damning forms of praise from the ways in which they discuss blacks. Listen for it in post-Super Bowl chatter, after the Academy Awards, at the next school board meeting or corporate retreat.
But here is a pointer. Do not use it as the primary attribute of note for a black person if you would not use it for a similarly talented, skilled or eloquent white person. Do not make it an outsized distinction for Brown University’s president, Ruth Simmons, if you would not for the University of Michigan’s president, Mary Sue Coleman. Do not make it the sole basis for your praise of the actor Forest Whitaker if it would never cross your mind to utter it about the expressive Peter O’Toole.
With the ballooning size of the black middle and upper class, qualities in blacks like intelligence, eloquence — the mere ability to string sentences together with tenses intact — must at some point become as unremarkable to whites as they are to blacks.
“How many flukes simply constitute reality?” Mr. Hudlin asked, with amused dismay.
Well said.