DoD Directive Closes Loopholes in Detainee Interrogation Policy
A newly reissued Department of Defense directive (pdf) explicitly prohibits several of the more controversial interrogation techniques that have previously been practiced against suspected enemy combatants.
So, for example, the new directive states that “Use of SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape] techniques against a person in the custody or effective control of the Department of Defense or detained in a DoD facility is prohibited.” Waterboarding, in which a sensation of drowning is induced, is one such SERE technique.
In another new prohibition, the directive states that “No dog shall be used as part of an interrogation approach or to harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce a detainee for interrogation purposes.”
Yet another new prohibition limits the role of psychologists advising interrogators: “Behavioral science consultants may not be used to determine detainee phobias for the purpose of exploitation during the interrogation process.”
The new directive states that it simply “codifies existing DoD policies.” The restrictions noted above, however, did not appear in the prior edition of this directive (pdf), dated 2005.
See “DoD Intelligence Interrogations, Detainee Debriefings, and Tactical Questioning,” DoD Directive 3115.09, October 9, 2008.
Recognizing the power of the national transportation infrastructure expert community and its distributed expertise, ARPA-I took a different route that would instead bring the full collective brainpower to bear around appropriately ambitious ideas.
NIH needs to seriously invest in both the infrastructure and funding to undertake rigorous nutrition clinical trials, so that we can rapidly improve food and make progress on obesity.
Confronting this crisis requires decision-makers to understand the lived realities of wildfire risk and resilience, and to work together across party lines. Safewoods helps make both possible.
Yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed revoking its 2009 “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases pose a substantial threat to the public. The Federation of American Scientists stands in strong opposition.