Anne Speckhard's Blog: Anne Speckhard, page 7

Not a Suicide Operation—but Suicide Ready?

“Victory or Paradise!” is the rallying cry of the Chechen suicide terrorists who took over the Beslan school and the Moscow theater (holding over one thousand and eight hundred hostages respectively).  Chechen terrorists acting from inside Chechnya launched more than 112 suicide attacks inside Chechnya and are still active spreading their movement outside Chechnya into the region.  Likewise because of the devastating wars of independence Chechens refugees dispersed all over the world—to Europe, Canada, U.S. and elsewhere.  As refugees they fled Chechnya and the surrounding region with deep traumas seared into their souls—death, torture, rapes, carpet bombings, complete and total devastation.  A few of these became terrorist instigators and actors in Belgium, in France and now it looks like also here. 

The young men identified as suspects in the Boston bombings are Chechens who came here as children fleeing two devastating wars of independence in Chechnya.  As such they likely grew up hearing stories of Russian atrocities there and may have also been exposed to stories glorifying rebel fighters in Chechnya that have been involved in militant jihadi activities.

Like the young Somalian refugees who joined the militant jihad from Minnesota they may have also been exposed to ethnic fighters or grew up with a longing for the home country alongside a deep sense of injustice over what is happening in their country and the world’s silence about it.  The global militant jihadi movement—AQ and its affiliates—recruits and motivates new members by showing atrocities against Muslims in conflicts all over the world—Kashmir, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, etc.—invoking sympathy for victims in these conflicts.  For young people it can be confusing—they can become convinced that Muslims worldwide are under attack and that they should join in order to defend Muslims.  And if they themselves grew up under attack these claims can be visceral—memories of war traumas return in full force.

While these young men grew up here and were obviously not “sent” abroad by a terrorist movement at nine years old (if they came ten years ago), this does not mean that they are true home-growns.  They most likely brought war trauma with them as refugees—they have the Chechen conflict seared into their souls and this makes them deeply vulnerable to militant jihadi movements.

Likewise as we watch the news still unfolding, we should keep in mind that the fact that these young suspects did not carry out a suicide operation does not mean that they are not suicide ready.  Like the Madrid bombers, or Muriel Deguaque’s husband—they may be carrying out one attack without suiciding hoping to fight another day—but they are probably ready to die and appear to have explosives at the ready.  If so we should expect them to rig them onto their bodies or where they are holed up into a suicide operation taking arresting officers down with themselves in a “martyrdom” operation. 

These people believe that dying in the fight takes them straight to paradise and also opens the doors of paradise for seventy of their relatives and this along with their political passion gives them the fortitude to die in this way—while they also rejoice in the killing they carry out in behalf of their “cause”.  My guess in this case the “cause” is an international one linked to the wider militant jihadi movement—and that the goal is hurting Americans not in revenge for what happened in Chechnya but in revenge for the perceived –from the militant jihadis point of view—war on Islam—and the civilian deaths that occur due to our war efforts with drones in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somali, etc.  It points again to our need to try to address and diminish war traumas that increase vulnerabilities in those who come as refugees from such areas and for us to be aware of trauma and revenge being once again awakened within them as motivators for terrorism.

By background the Chechen conflict which began as a secular independence movement in 1991 following the break up of the Soviet Union was turned from a rebel movement into militant jihadi terrorism by an influx of middle eastern money and former Afghani fighters—still euphoric over defeating the former USSR in Afghanistan.  Feeling abandoned by the west the Chechen rebels fighting for independence from Russia embraced a “martyrdom” ideology and eventually began launching suicide attacks—the first occurring in June of 2000 involving two women driving an explosive laden truck.  The Chechens went on to launch over thirty attacks using over one hundred twelve suicide bombings bombings—nearly half involving female bombers.  My colleague and I conducted psychological autopsies on half of these bombers—over sixty of them—identifying what put them on the terrorists trajectory and what moved them along it to the point of believing exploding themselves to kill others was a good idea.  I also interviewed in Belgium a militant jihadi operative who was radicalized into the movement by a Chechen living in Antwerp who radicalized not only him but many other young people into the global militant jihadi movement.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”  In the last decade she interviewed over four hundred terrorists, suicide bombers, terrorist supporters, family members, close associates and hostages.  She also conducted psychological autopsies with a Chechen colleague on over half of the 112 Chechen suicide bombers investigating what put them on the terrorist trajectory and what motivated them to explode themselves.

The Gatekeepers—Voices from Israel Giving Warnings for the Future?

The Gatekeepers a new documentary movie by Dror Moreh, provides haunting one-on-one interviews with each of the six surviving former heads of Shin Bet—who nearly consecutively ran the secretive, counterterrorist Israeli security service from 1980 to 2011.

While these former heads of the Shin Bet all agree that the fight against terrorism is a necessary and righteous one, their interviews in this film are disturbing—yet honest musings.  And they shed light on the morality and potential effectiveness regarding the way the war on terrorism was fought in their country—and they by extension share hard won wisdom that might be useful in thinking about how the U.S. war on terrorism is now being fought the world over.

Collectively these men—Ami Ayalon, Avi Dichter, Yuval Diskin, Carmi Gillon, Yaakov Peri and Avraham Shalom—are powerful dissenting voices to the current Netanyahu government, convinced that Israel is on the wrong track and that the future is “dark,” as Shalom states.  Although disturbed by their country’s responses to terrorism particularly as it broke out in the First and Second Intifadas, they appear to favor a political solution and withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, with dismantling of what they called “illegal” settlements.

The film opened with the statement being made that “Politicians don’t like being presented with many options but prefer black and white binary options,” whereas the security services “operate in shades of grey”.   Indeed they spoke of recruiting collaborators and taking “someone who doesn’t like you and making him do things he never could believe he could do,” as well as carrying out hundreds of thousands of interrogations—using harsh methods on those they suspected of terrorism including blindfolding, hooding, shaking, sleep deprivation, etc. 

And quoting Clausewitz—that “Victory is creating a better political reality,” these men all appeared to fault their politicians for failing to find a peaceful end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  When asked to comment on the predictions of Israeli intellectual Yeshayahu Leibovitz, who after the 1967 Six-Day War warned that if Israel tried to occupy millions of people it would lead to the decline of Israel’s moral stature and that Israel would become a Shin Bet state—these former security chiefs agreed!

One commented that “making the lives of millions unbearable” and “the prolonged suffering of the Palestinians” had to stop and another saying that serving in the Army changes people’s characters especially when they see they are taking part in a “brutal occupying force”. 

Another stated, “You cannot make peace via military means—you must establish trust.” And that “Overkill—to kill families and children is ineffective and inhumane.”  Although the comment was also made, “In the war of terrorism—forget morality.” 

One even warned that he expects another political assassination (like that of Rabin) if the West Bank settlements are ever dismantled.  And on the topic of the settlements, one states, “They [the Palestinians] wanted a state and got more settlements. We wanted security and got more suicide bombers.”  One security head commented that the “number of settlements around the time of the Second Intifada doubled from 100,000 to 220,000 settlements in a period of six to seven years”

What were referred to as the “Totally illegal settlements” were also credited with having encouraged settlers to other illegal activities—including bomb attacks on Palestinians, thwarted placement of bombs on busses that Palestinians would have boarded and even the know well known plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock with Semtex explosives strategically placed on the Temple Mount.  And the security chiefs were disgusted that after being convicted, the settler underground were shortly thereafter released based on political patronage. 

One of the men also went on to explain that during the Second Intifada, after talking in London to Eyud Sarraj, a psychiatrist who heads the Gaza Mental Health Clinic, that he had the sudden awakening—“that the suicide bomber wants revenge”—and he realized that after terror attacks “the same was true on both sides”. 

And already understanding that both see the other as a terrorist—his side viewed that way because of the collateral damage caused in their counter terrorism attacks—this security chief was amazed when Dr. Sarraj explained to him that the Palestinians understood overwhelming force and didn’t expect to win, but that as Sarraj reportedly put it, “Victory for us is seeing you suffer.  It brings a balance of power.  Your F-16—our suicide bomber.”

Indeed when I spent two years interviewing in the West Bank and Gaza during the Second Intifada, I found this attitude borne out and also found it is often also the view of AQ operatives elsewhere as well—revenge and causing suffering in the other who has caused a high collateral damage has its own distinct pleasure even for those who understand such attacks will not bring about victory.

When Israel first began using targeted assassinations, Martin Indyk the U.S. Ambassador at the time—in July, 2001 (just before 9-11) denounced Israel’s use of targeted killing against Palestinian terrorists stating, “The United States government is very clearly on record as against targeted assassinations . . . They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”  

Times since 9-11 have changed drastically, but perhaps now when our drone attacks are causing a high civilian casualty rate and we too have engaged in disturbing soft torture methods we need to think over the haunted reminiscing’s of Israel’s security chiefs. 

One who mused over the movement from assassinating bomb makers to also targeting ideologues and inciters of terrorism stated that ‘targeted assassinations become a conveyer belt and you ask yourself less and less when to stop.”  Ominously looking back one commented, “Restraint is actually harder than to act.” 

These disturbing interviews of these clearly hardened men—undisputed patriots that worked hard and sacrificed to protect Israeli lives—are of men who wielded incredible power and yet are bewildered by it.  Each seemed clearly in solemn awe of the power to take life in an instant—feeling it even years afterward as a weighty and haunting responsibility.  Perhaps we should learn from them.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”

Saying No to Rape: The Steubenville Rape Case—Happening every Friday Night Across America?

The recent Steubenville rape case brings up some very disturbing issues regarding the attitude in this culture of males in this culture seeing females as objects of sexual gratification and consumption that they can abuse and prey upon—urinating, forcing oral sex, digital penetration and rape on—all because she drank too much and lost her ability to protect herself, fight back or even say no. 

In the Steubenville case the girl who was raped is said to have became drunk at a party held by one of the assistant football coaches—a party which she left totally inebriated and vomiting.  This alone begs questions of criminal culpability for an adult member of the community—a coach—who was reportedly serving alcohol to minors and failing to protect those who became drunk as a result. 

Moreover, the Steubenville boys who committed the crime so strongly believed they were immune to being held to task that they bragged about, texted, tweeted and photographed evidence of their crime—cruel actions that thankfully later incriminated them. 

But these boys were not the only ones lacking in empathy and compassion—none of her peers who learned of it through social media—even while it was ongoing, and afterward did anything to stop or report it to the authorities.  Even when adults learned of it—they did nothing.  And perhaps most shocking of all—the perpetrators allegedly believed their coach would protect them, versus her, and make their crime “go away”.

While most of us want to see this as an aberration, the truth is—as the District Attorney reminded us—this is a phenomena that is all too tragically happening every Friday night and perhaps every night, all across America. 

We still live in a culture where boys and men believe that a “mistake” made by a woman of being alone, unguarded, dressed sexually or inebriated allows them to dehumanize and sexually assault her.  And girls also apparently believe it—as too many of them wake up the next morning traumatized from what happened—and too terrified to press charges the next day—fearing they versus their rapists will be blamed for getting drunk. 

Even today in our modern society young girls still fear that they will be blamed and labeled as at fault, and even as a “slut” for having put themselves in a vulnerable situation.  And they know that we still live in a culture where they will be put through a process—just as the young girl in Steubenville was—where wide swathes of the community will lack compassion and empathy for the victim and instead close ranks around and protect the rapists.  Girls and women in our society know that we still live in a culture where parents, teachers and men and boys still believe it’s okay to rape—when a girl is vulnerable and unable to say no—thinking of it as a “boys will be boys” or “men will be men” phenomena.

Steubenville is not an aberration.  Other cases very similar to it are well documented and countless others never see the light of day. 

It’s time our society rallied around rape victims—as the wider country did this time in behalf of the Steubenville victim—to stand up for the rights of girls and women to be vulnerable in states of drunkenness, undress, solitariness and in any other way unprotected—to still be protected by a community that says an unequivocal, loud, resounding and firm NO to excusing rape and sexual assault of any human being—man, woman or child—under any circumstances. 

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Fetal Abduction: The True Story of Multiple Personalities and Murder and Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”

 

The Jodi Arias Trial & Dissociative Amnesia for Sex – the Intersection of PTSD & Dissociation with Child Abuse, Rape and the Carrying out of Crimes

The Jodi Arias murder case in which she claims prior abuse and failure to remember crucial aspects of her crime have brought the issues of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and dissociation—concepts that are confusing to many—into national attention leaving many bewildered about how traumas, dissociation and crime may all be linked together.  

Oftentimes PTSD is thought of as a disorder in which one cannot forget a trauma.  And in many cases of PTSD, the trauma—having been burned deeply into memory—is constantly relived in intensely detailed and disturbing traumatic flashbacks.  This is the most common manifestation of PTSD and what we have become accustomed to seeing portrayed in movies of trauma victims such as veterans perhaps suffering flashbacks of combat for instance.

There is however, also another side to PTSD and that is when a dissociative amnesia occurs in response to a trauma that is too horrible to make its way into the normal conscious narrative. This often happens for rape victims or others whose bodies were literally penetrated in an assault, accident or crime——they were so overwhelmed in every sense that their mind failed to record all the details of what happened to them, or locked it away so deeply that they are unlikely to get it back except in the safety of treatment—thus they suffer from a dissociative amnesia.  They cannot remember everything that happened—the trauma is completely blocked from consciousness and locked away in the mind—in what psychologists label a dissociative amnesia.  This is less common than recurring flashbacks but also occurs in those who have been deeply traumatized and suffer from PTSD.

A case of such an effect that comes to mind is Lorena Bobbit whose defense team I served on.  After separating from her violently abusive husband who had threatened to continue raping her —into perpetuity—after their divorce she was again raped by him one last time.  So horrified by the traumatic experience of rape and the fact that he apparently believed he could do as he liked with her, she stood up from the rape and suddenly experienced a flood of all the other abuse he had subjected her to over a long period of time—all episodes that she normally kept locked up in her mind.  And during that overwhelming episode of traumatic recall—seeing a knife on the counter—she took it and removed “his weapon” ensuring he would never rape her again.  In those moments she moved into a dissociative amnesia—and drove away from their home in such a state—only gradually “coming to” as she regained safety at which time she recalled both the rape and the crime.  In this case a brutal sexual assault—following many others that had happened before it—caused a brief dissociative amnesia in which a chronic abuse victim enacted a crime and fled from it.

In addition to these responses to trauma there is yet another type of dissociation—dissociative identity disorder—that occurs in childhood victims of repetitive and inescapable traumas such as chronic sexual or violent abuse during early development.  In these cases the child may create an entire sequestered personality—or personalities—that hold the traumas, with complete or partial amnesias occurring between the personalities.  This used to be referred to as multiple personality disorder and is now referred to as dissociative identity disorder, and is believed to be rare. 

I witnessed dissociative identity disorder in Annette Morales Rodriguez (and later wrote a book about it—Fetal Abduction) who admitted to me while in jail that she was both a rape and sexual abuse victim and that she had managed until just before her crime to keep all the memories of her rape and sexual abuse separated from her conscious awareness by having two personalities.  However later in life when severely triggered by stressful events, her second personality “Lara” emerged with a vengeance and enacted a murder for which she had no conscious recall.  Tragically the abuse had gone full circle and an abuse victim had in a severely dissociative state also become a victimizer.

So, is it possible to have a sexual episode engender dissociative responses and amnesia as Jody Arias’ defense team is claiming?  Yes—I have seen this many times but only in those who endured rape or chronic sexual abuse. 

Once, for instance a victim of childhood sodomy told me that she had complete amnesia and could not believe it had occurred, even when her mother presented her with hospital records of the event.  Likewise when I questioned her further she was horrified to realize that she “disappeared” and had no record whatsoever of any sexual act that she had ever taken part in.  She could, for instance tell me that she had sex (with her loving husband) a week previously and she could tell me where it started and what happened before and afterward but she was terrified to realize, with my questioning, that she was at a complete loss to recall anything that had happened during the actual sexual encounter.  And this was true throughout her life.

Whether Jodi Arias is one of these cases I will refrain from commenting as I have only followed her case peripherally.  But is it hypothetically possible that the threat of abuse following chronic abuse, or the act of sex following the experience of abuse or rape, or killing in the act of self-defense could engender a dissociative amnesia? Yes.  Is this the case with Jodi Arias?  I don’t know but I would comment that her seemingly need to over-kill her claimed abuser disturbs me—it’s almost as if she didn’t believe she could stop his life—and that makes me wonder.  

That said I would add that with the societally denied—but sadly true ubiquity of child sexual abuse, rape and violence occurring in our culture—I am never totally surprised to run into persons who have rather severe PTSD, dissociative amnesias and dissociative disorders.  Rape and sexual abuse are very terrifying experiences and victims are often silenced by threats and continued abuse.  As a result some repeatedly re-experience their traumas as painful flashbacks and bodily arousal with triggers to recalling the trauma; others bury such traumas deeply in their mind with dissociative amnesias that they take many measures to keep buried until they are safe enough to work through them—if that ever occurs—and still others bury childhood traumatic experiences by splitting their consciousness into personality fragments that have strong dissociative and amnestic barriers between them.

What the Jody Arias case should make us all realize is that when rape and child abuse do occur—and they do often occur—the victims can be plagued with traumatic flashbacks, dissociative amnesias and even fragmented personalities and like Lorena Bobbit, Annette Morales Rodriguez and many others—they may commit crimes.  Indeed I have even seen the same issues occurring also in individuals who volunteer as terrorists for suicide missions (see Talking to Terrorists).  We should all be working to stop rape and child abuse because not only does it create victims but sometimes those victims turn around and commit crimes making our society less safe for all of us.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the Georgetown University Medical School and author of Fetal Abduction: The True Story of Multiple Personalities and Murder and Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”

 

Al Qaeda’s Lone Mujahid Pocketbook, Lone Wolves, Home-grown Terrorists and the Threat Among Us

The March issue of Al Qaeda’s Inspire Magazine is now out and is this time featuring The Lone Mujahid Pocketbook—drawing heavily on past issues—and emphasizing home-grown, lone wolf and softer target attacks with instructions to make them accessible to many.  While on some levels it’s laughable —it also brings up some troubling issues to consider regarding possible attacks from potential home-grown terrorists.

First question—if the current administration’s drone strikes are so effective in decapitating Al Qaeda’s leadership why is there still an active al Qaeda core that is able to put out such a publication?  Are the likes of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadahn and their brothers residing within reach of Internet capability—in Pakistan perhaps—as did now slain Osama bin Ladin who was living almost right next door to their military academy?  And are our troops sacrificing life and limb fighting the so-called “War on Terror” while our so-called ally is harboring them?  If so, this is deeply troubling…

Likewise with advice being promulgated over the Internet of “Don’t travel to jihad—instead strike at home—work alone and hit domestic western targets to create economic havor, terror and harassment”—we must ask ourselves how likely are these al Qaeda inspired home-grown and lone terrorists to emerge from among us?

When I interviewed terrorists and violent extremists over the last decade in places ranging from the Middle and Far East to all over Europe, I found that there were four necessary ingredients that made up the lethal cocktail of terrorism—1) the group and its many functions, 2) the ideology that justifies attacking civilians, 3) some level of social support and 4) the individuals vulnerable to be caught up in it all.   And I found that inside conflict zones revenge and trauma were often enough to make many willing to join if they had exposure to a terror group and its ideology.  Whereas in non-conflict zones—such as in Western Europe—it’s more about personal experiences of discrimination and marginalization, looking for a positive identity, belonging, adventure and escape.  And as the terror groups bring—through pictures and videos—disturbing images from the conflict zones to the nonconflict zones—the misplaced belief in altruistic heroism also is a draw as terrorist operatives come to believe they are helping the wider ummah by enacting terrorism.

In Europe I found the Muslims converts and reverts who resonated to the al Qaeda ideology and who were willing to consider “martyrdom” operations were mostly second generation immigrants facing ethnic tensions, unable (or unwilling) to fit into society angry, marginalized, and unemployed, or under-employed as a result of discrimination. Seeking meaning and adventure in their lives they decided to belong elsewhere—to terrorist groups.

What about in the United States?  Will we see the call to rise up and fight made from the likes of American terrorists like the Somali-American rapper Omar Hammami, California raised Adam Gadahn and others—to strike at home and abroad—resonating with American Muslims? 

We saw Major Nidal Hasan taking a gun and attacking at his own military base—as a lone active shooter—in the way al Qaeda advises.  We have seen Somali boys resonating to the call made in person by European Somali militant jihadis coming from the battlegrounds—who portrayed themselves as manly heroes to these impressionable youth.  And we’ve seen another wave of Somali boys go in response to the first wave who telephoning and messaging back home glorified the militant jihad to those still at home.  We also watched in horror as Faisal Shahzad placed a vehicle laden with explosives in Times Square.

We need to ask ourselves why did these Muslims here in the U.S. join?  What did they resonate to and if others follow—why, how and where will they attack and what can we do about it? 

First it’s important to realize there are very few lone wolf terrorists—it requires too much (misplaced) courage and self-initiative to go it alone—so most require a group and ideology to act.  However, there is now a group and an entire “university of jihad” (as Reuven Paz terms it) available 24/7 via the Internet to anyone who logs on—so both the group and ideology are there for the taking all day and night long.  Indeed as the latest issue of Inspire encourages—avoid Internet and phone—use instead SITE and Memri (two excellent counter-terrorism monitoring sites) to read AQ documents on how to carry out attacks.  So solo actors can now take instructions virtually from al Qaeda with no meetings and no training camps needed.

Will those living amongst us respond?  In the case of some we already know the answer—yes. 

Some already did.  In all cases their responses were mediated by deep and emotionally laden concerns over our actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and by our collateral damage in drone strikes.  In addition Nidal Hasan had a Palestinian background and may have already been deeply and personally affected by the events of the Second Intifada in which “martyrdom” suicide missions there became nearly the norm. 

What can we do to make it a no? 

The best answers are what is already good about America—that those living here believe that we are a free and open society, that they can protest and right things they believe are wrong through existing institutions that work well—rather than through the use of violent attacks—and that they have the hope of a good future.  Those are not the only answers but good things that we need to insure for all of us, on all levels of society, if we don’t want to end up in the European situation of having disgruntled minority groups resonating to the AQ call to terrorism. 

Likewise we need to keep civilian deaths, torture, soft torture and all compromises to the conscience of our great country to a minimum so that Adam Gadahn and his ilk cannot use pictures of Abu Ghraib, pictures of children burned up in drone strikes or stories of war crimes committed by our soldiers to whip up vulnerable individuals living here. 

If we can do that we have taken significant steps to ensure that the Lone Mujahid Pocketbook remains a meaningless and laughable document in al Qaeda central’s back pocket and stays there—unlikely to be implemented by anyone here.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is the author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”

Zero Dark Thirty – And the Real World of Torture, Enhanced Interrogation, Rendition and Prolonged Detention

The disturbing torture scenes depicted in the recent film Zero Dark Thirty along with President Obama’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act allowing for Americans on U.S. soil to be subject to indefinite detention and torture have once again brought the questions relating to the usefulness of rendition, indefinite imprisonments and torture (both lite and hard) back into the public consciousness.  With media depictions increasingly glorifying the roles of military and civilian intelligence officers—even those who rely on torture—surveys of U.S. citizens have shown an alarming increase of Americans who embrace the idea of torture.   Of course one must understand that people—on both sides of the “war on terrorism” —are increasingly likely to embrace violent and extremist measures in direct proportion to the more they feel threatened.

That being said, however, the thoughtful individual needs to examine some core questions—the first being—does torture in any of it’s forms, including “torture lite” work?  The answer appears to be a resounding no.  Torture for the most part fails as a tactic because it does not leads to credible information, is problematic later for anyone we wish to prosecute, and may actually contribute far more to terrorism recruitment rather than to curbing terrorism.  When dealing with al Qaeda for instance we must understand that most hardened terrorists who have blood on their hands have committed themselves to the idea of “martyrdom” and may be adept at misleading us when we believe they have cracked under torture. And when we resort to anything that is morally bankrupt they will later use it against us to show their constituents and potential recruits our “true colors”.

By contrast, interrogation that relies on rapport building has shown itself to yield positive results.  When I worked in Iraq helping to build the Detainee Rehabilitation Program for the 20,000+ detainees held there at that time by U.S. forces, three high value AQ operatives had been turned to our side as a result of a skilled and kind interrogator.  The simple act of sensitively inquiring about a head wound that needed treatment versus days of holding a person in stress positions, while denying him the ability to use the toilet as needed, and other abuses was much more effective in getting one of these operatives to switch sides, talk and to offer to assist us in our efforts to fight AQ in Iraq. Former FBI agent Jack Cloonan agrees, stating that we have been very successful in getting even hardened terrorists with blood on their hands to talk by using old fashioned methods of building rapport.  Interrogation and building rapport are actually acutely honed skills that rely on a high level of emotional intelligence and that should be carefully taught and used in place of brute force.

I also found in Iraq that many of the lower value detainees expressed genuine amazement that they had been humanely treated and not tortured while in U.S. detention facilities.  They as a result also became much more positive about the U.S. and had little to go home to tell their families and tribes against us.

Whereas when pictures of our misdeeds in Abu Ghraib circulated, they became a powerful propaganda tool for AQ recruitment, fueling claims we are not who we say we are.  Indeed when I interviewed an Iraqi sheik who had been held in Abu Ghraib he was three years onward still suffering from the shame and humiliation of the way he had been forced to strip naked and be photographed while his genitals were mocked in the presence of female soldiers in the room.  And this Sheik’s outrage did not end with him—it extended to his entire family and tribe who are all responsible to revenge for him.

 And if we combine his outrage with that of our already too high collateral damage tolls from drone attacks, the fear and anger in civilian populations engendered by our drones, our renditions, prolonged detentions and our use of hooding, darkness, cold, loud and disturbing music, small cells, solitary confinement, stress positions, water boarding and all the other permutations of “torture lite” that we have recently resorted to—our actions become profound and powerful recruiting tools for al Qaeda.  And whatever gains made are severely outweighed by the loss of the moral high ground that occurs when we are lowered to the level of our enemies and we ourselves make a mockery of our once highly cherished principles of human rights.

That power corrupts is a well-known adage.  The famous Zimbardo prison experiments demonstrated how role-playing students when placed in positions of prison authority over others quickly transformed into cruel guards.  In real life the UK learned this lesson as well.  When their forces were allowed to use highly coercive interrogation techniques against IRA prisoners they found that it quickly advanced to cruel threats and the actual use of violence.  The progression in Abu Ghraib similarly moved quickly from prisoner physical to sexual abuse. When oversight and limits are missing in prison situations, cruelty can quickly abound with serious repercussions for all. 

And neither the UK or the U.S. claimed any significant actionable Intel as a result of these two shameful situations.

While “torture lite” may leave no lasting physical scars, the psychological scars of arrest, prolonged detention without due process, rendition and “torture lite” all leave long lasting psychological scars.  Indeed, imprisonment itself can be traumatic when it occurs without due process.  Who among us would do well with being put in a cage with little to no outside contact whilst having their records and computers suddenly and completely impounded? Relationships, employment, businesses, marriage plans—entire lives go off track in such instances.

When I made interviews of Palestinians during the second Intifada who had been put in administrative detention I found many youth who emerged from not knowing why or how long they would be held were deeply traumatized.  Even hardened terrorist leader Zakaria Zubeidi, leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade in Jenin and sender of suicide terrorists, told me he’d rather “martyr” himself than ever again return to a prison cell.  Chechens who faced serious torture echoed similar sentiments. This tells me that our use of administrative detention and “torture lite” may actually contribute to the hardening of many terrorists who fear imprisonment more than “martyrdom”.

So as we debate once again our methods of choice in the fight against terrorism I suggest we back off of secretive decisions in behalf of proxy torture, secret detentions, coercive interrogations and the use of torture of any type.  Instead we should once again become a society that publically debates these issues and wisely decides to uphold the fundamental human rights of all persons—even those of unlawful enemy combatants.  And when those times come when we have no choice but to detain terrorism suspects we must learn from our mistakes and know that mistreating them nearly always carries too high a price and leads to less positive results than treating humans with the dignity and care that is necessary to build real rapport that can yield real results.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is the author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”

Raping our Privacy? Our Bodies, Drones, Invasive Search and our Fourth Amendment Rights

When I wrote Fetal Abduction which is the true story of a mentally ill woman who murdered a pregnant woman to take her fetus and try to pass it on as her own I wrote the book because I was concerned about how the justice system seemed to fail a poor, Spanish speaking and mentally ill person who I felt needed an insanity defense. I was also appalled at how the Judge in the case ruled on issues of public safety. He found that evidence collected while Annette Morales Rodrigues was in Milwaukee County Police custody—evidence collected via two invasive vaginal exams—one that the police and the hospital both documented as her having adamantly refused—was allowable as it was in the interest of public safety. The Judge  justified the police decision not to waste their time to read Mrs. Morales Rodriguez her rights and allow her to exercise them because they thought a life may have been saved—although in fact the woman in question was already dead.

Now as we witness the controversy over the use of drones and the public discussion about their use overseas—as well as their future overhead—right here in the U.S.—we must think hard about what other threats we may ultimately face here of accepting too much emphasis on threats to public safety.  We must realize that we will always live with some level of threat—from terrorism and from other types of crimes such as the murder referenced above—and we must come to an acceptable means of balancing those concerns to that of our Fourth Amendment Rights protecting us against undue search and invasion of privacy.

Although vaginally searching a woman while under police custody in an examination she is clearly refusing seems to me to be about the worst case scenario I can imagine—there are other government sponsored invasions to privacy also to consider.  

And I worry that if a judge in Wisconsin can rule that a woman’s vagina can be invasively searched for the interest of public safety while she’s being held without being informed she’s under arrest, without her being able to contact her attorney, and without her rights even having been read to her—and this all done twice against her consent while being held by a police department who have incidentally been facing other scandals now being investigated by the U.S. federal government—then what’s to say drones won’t also be used for highly invasive purposes? Raping us in a sense of our dignity and privacy without us ever having the right to refuse?

In the case of Annette Morales Rodriguez the judge was ruling in reference to potentially saving one woman’s life at the expense of violating the rights of another.  What’s to be said if the government argues that multiple lives might be saved by invasively searching via drones from overhead of all of our back yards, our driveways, our patios, balconies, rooftops, our meeting places, and homes—possibly even our bodies—to learn who we are seeing, who visits us, and what we are doing in the privacy of our own homes? And this carried out via an increasing array of technology that will likely include acute visual, auditory and infrared sensing and much more.

It’s not a fantasy scenario. Indeed in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled in Florida v. Riley that a police helicopter “search” conducted without a warrant over Riley’s back yard in which a helicopter which was flown and hovered four hundred feet overhead allowing the police to see what they suspected—that the man was growing marijuana in a backyard greenhouse—was allowable.  While Riley argued that for the police to hover over his backyard in a helicopter—enabling them to view his private business and allowing them to see inside his fence—violated his expectation of privacy, the court ruled that it did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.

However in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled in Kyllo vs. U.S.—a case again where the police learned that the homeowner was growing marijuana, in this case via heat lamps—that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a search warrant was an invasion of privacy and constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment.  The Supreme Court stated that a citizen has a “subjective expectation of privacy” in his own home and that a warrant is necessary to use remote sensing devices.

However, remember that this was before the “war on terror” at a time when the U.S. government was still adamantly protesting Israel’s practice of “targeted assassinations” calling them unacceptable extrajudicial killings. And keep in mind we are talking about a U.S. government who in regard to drones has granted to itself the right to strike anywhere, at anytime and in countries that are not at war with the United States and to do so endlessly—potentially setting up an international precedent that may create a significant and terrifying backlash.  There will be a future of drones overhead here in the U.S. and they will be invasively searching our lives—and perhaps even our bodies—unless we all get seriously concerned and speak up against it—before it’s too late.

Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is the author of Fetal Abduction: The True Story of Multiple Personalities and Murder and Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs”

 

 

Death from the Skies—Targeted International Assassinations via U.S. Drones

With John Brennan—considered by many to be the mastermind behind U.S. drone policy—nominated to be the next head of the CIA, we are hearing a lot about drones. And unlike those upon who drones reign down terror—it’s not the high pitch of an overhead motor that we are hearing.  Instead the discussion is all about kill rates, kill versus capture, terrorizing innocents and an absence of transparency about policy—particularly when Americans and minors are considered eligible targets.

Surgically precise and effective—drone strikes are argued by many to be useful in decapitating known terrorist leadership. However the truth is that noncombatants are also being effected and the human toll of that fact may be causing as much threat to our national security as live terrorist leaders also pose. 

Much of the damage caused by U.S. drone strikes is clouded in secrecy and the U.S. government rarely acknowledges the full extent of civilian casualties.  And how civilians are categorized is also arguable—for instance all adult males in the strike vicinity are often named as militants.  Data reported by the New American Foundation, informs that in Pakistan alone drones have killed between 1,953 to 3,279 persons since 2004—with between eighteen and twenty-three percent of these being civilians.  (In 2012, the hit rate on militants got better and the civilian kill rate went down to ten percent.)  The New American Foundation also estimates that of the 646 to 928 people killed in Yemen (in a combination of air and drone strikes) four to eight percent were civilians.

In addition to the civilian kills, researchers are finding that armed drones hovering over Pakistani communities day and night and suddenly striking homes, vehicles and public spaces without warning also causes considerable anxiety and psychological trauma in the daily lives of ordinary civilians—most notably children.  When families fear gathering for funerals; tribal leaders shun gathering in groups—even for tribal dispute resolution; children are kept indoors and community members dread public assemblies, a breakdown in society occurs and anti-American sentiment is greatly fostered.  Likewise when the U.S. becomes known for striking an area multiple times killing those who gather around the first strike—a behavior that unfortunately mirrors al Qaeda type strikes—and rescue and even humanitarian workers fear aiding injured victims—both societies—theirs and ours is gravely injured  in multiple ways (see the Stanford/NYU Living Under Drones Report http://livingunderdrones.org for more on this).

Indeed as the arguments of today are made in behalf of drone strikes we forget that it was not long ago—only twelve years back, in July, 2001—just before 9-11, that Martin Indyk our then American Ambassador to Israel, denounced Israel’s use of targeted killing against Palestinian terrorists stating, “The United States government is very clearly on record as against targeted assassinations. . . . They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”  Likewise, George Tenet, the then CIA’s agency director argued the week before 9-11 that it would be “a terrible mistake” for “the Director of Central Intelligence to fire a weapon like this.”

Times appear to have changed. 

 That we are winning the so-called “war on terror” by heavy reliance on drone strikes is not necessarily true.  For one thing killing militants versus capturing them means that valuable Intel that might have been collected from prisoners is never gathered.  And as YouTube videos of burnt drone victims—including pictures of child victims—circulate over the Internet and ideologues cry out for more recruits to protect the innocent Muslim ummah against “death from the skies” we may be unwittingly contributing more to global militant jihadi terrorism recruitment than we are gaining by terrorist decapitation. Researchers have long known that when a feeling of personal threat from an outside force increases, so to does social support and endorsement for terrorism among the civilian population thereby increasing the pool of potential recruits.

Moreover when there is a lack of public transparency over U.S. drone strike policies, failure to follow international laws regarding who can and cannot be targeted by lethal force—especially force administered by CIA operatives versus our uniformed military—and repeat strikes kill rescue workers aiding the victims of the first strike—we may be playing with real fire.  Soon other nations will also have drones and all will likely deem whatever practices we follow justifiable.  If all of these concerns are not addressed thoughtfully in the coming months they may conspire to create circumstance in which our government’s moral stance is considered so questionable that in relying on drone strikes we may be doing more—rather than less—to increase the dangers from terrorism.

 Anne Speckhard, Ph.D. is author of Talking to Terrorists: Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & “Martyrs” available on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Terrorists-Understanding-Psycho-Social-Rehabilitation/dp/1935866532/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

Christopher Dorner & The Murder/Martyrdom Mentality of Terrorists

As hundreds of investigators are trying to catch former LAPD police officer Christopher Dorner in one of the hugest man hunts in South California, the country is puzzling over his manifesto and recently declared war on the Los Angeles police.  His actions remind me of the psychological framework of terrorists who adapt a murder/martyrdom mindset to address either a real or perceived grievance.

Christopher Dorner may not be a true terrorist, and if he is one—he is a lone wolf—as he is not working with any terror group and he has not signed on to any terrorist ideology.  However, he has in common with terrorists that he is a non-state actor and attacking civilians (including law enforcement officers and their family members) to create terror in the community—in this case using extreme violence, attacks on civilians and a public manifesto and using the predictable media spotlight—to try to shape public opinion and to force the LAPD to address his claimed grievances regarding what he sees as racism.  And his stance of willing to murder others knowing it will likely end in his suicide, probably in “death by cop” are all hallmarks of terrorists that follow a murder/martyrdom mentality in behalf of their cause.

Christopher Dorner’s manifesto while narsiccisitic and grandiose is largely rational versus the rantings of the insane—and reflects the thoughts of a person who perhaps due to his own lifetime of painful experiences sensitized him, maybe over-sensitized him, to the issue of racism.  Like many terrorists who go down the terrorist trajectory, Christopher Dorner appears to have an individual vulnerability—as his self reports and those of others who interacted with him on the issue of racism evidence.  He appears to have a great deal of anger, even violent responses, to encountering what he claims was racism inside the LAPD.  The LAPD deny his charges although we do know that what happened to Rodney King is not an imagined event and that “whistle blowers” often do get silenced and pay a price without justice being done.  In this case, Christopher Dorner’s perceptions of events and his grievance over them—whether real or not—when not addressed by the LAPD in a manner that worked for him—was the trigger that moved him into the martyrdom/murder mentality in which he is now willing to kill and die for his cause. 

In my research over the past decade, I interviewed over four hundred terrorists, their close associates, supporters and hostages from around the world and I found over and over again that those who were willing to kill and die for their cause had gotten into this same type of mindset that allowed them to glorify murder/suicide.  According to their perceptions, and often of the group they became involved with (via the terrorist’s ideology) they came to believe that by using violence against civilians that they were bringing justice, being heroic, standing up for a cause, becoming a religious “martyr” and bending the political process to their will by their own self sacrificing death and murder.  Of course murder/suicide is never heroic but if one becomes convinced that it is, then those beliefs may begin to move that person into a grandiose state that is truly intoxicating.

Furthermore, psychologists know that the most likely predictor of suicide is that the person is experiencing overwhelming psychological pain—sometimes referred to as psychache—that drives him to chose suicide as an escape .  And we know that when deadly serious in their suicidal intentions, individuals often go “dissociative” before they kill themselves—that is normal cognitive functions drop out, they become detached from their normal way of thinking and feeling and the horror of what they are about to do—take their own lives and perhaps the lives of others as well. And in this dissociative state they also often spontaneously enter into a state of euphoria. 

That is why family members of suiciders often recall that the depressed loved one suddenly became “happy” or seemed “at peace” just before he took his own life. Indeed the psychological reprieve of making a definite plan that will afford an escape from overwhelming psychic pain coupled with what probably is a deeply ingrained psychological defense to overcoming the self preservation instinct likely delivers an opiod response in the brain that for many is experienced as pure euphoria.  

Similarly suicide bombers often claim that when contemplating their own death and the murder of others delivers a sense of euphoria. As they step totally away from the pain, they step into a dissociative bliss that accompanies taking one’s own life.  It seems that this euphoric state empowers a suicide/murderer to go forward to die while killing others, and if the cause is religious, to also believe that he or she is “on the path of God” and doing the right thing.

Of course media involvement is crucial to those who take on the murder/suicide or “martyrdom” ideology in their attempt to bend the political will of those they terrorize by using violence to call full media attention to their cause.  And receiving attention can also contribute to a sense of grandiosity.  This is problematic for the media who have the duty to report the news but also must struggle not to become mouthpieces for terrorists.

The answer to this murder/martyrdom mindset is complex, but one issue that should be addressed  in terms of prevention is to investigate, and when possible, correct real grievances of those who become so in pain and so enraged that they are willing to murder and die for their cause.  It becomes for them a sick passion whereby they come to believe that by using violence they can bend others to address issues as they see fit.  And once on their killing path, they are—as we are seeing in the case of Christopher Dorner—extremely lethal and difficult to stop.  

 

When a Posttraumatic Flashback Turns into a Real Life Nightmare

When Posttraumatic Flashbacks Turn Into Living Nightmares

Chris Kyle by all accounts was an amazing hero—a Navy Seal who passed his BUD/S training and went on to serve in Iraq distinguishing himself as one of our military’s most lethal snipers, a role in which he often protected his team mates. According to news accounts when Chris decided to return home from the demanding tempo of his job he struggled briefly with all he’d been through but perhaps true to his Seal can-do spirit he overcame his re-entry stress and followed through on his strong desire to bond again with his wife and build his family strong. And like many Navy Seals he continued giving back to society long after his commission was over. After getting his own affairs in order, he began volunteering his time to work with other veterans who were struggling, but not finding the same resilience he had.

Eddie Ray Routh also served his country as a Marine but by preliminary press accounts evidently came home as a wounded warrior—not finding the peace in his soul that he needed to rebuild his life.

Chris Kyle was the type of American hero who not only served his country on the battlefield but once back home began searching for ways that he could help others. Kyle was not a psychologist but apparently intuitively understood a few important things in his volunteer work with other suffering veterans. One was that the camaraderie and bonds forged in military service during active duty are authentic and meaningful—and often deeply missed when a soldier returns home.

And Kyle also understood that if what a soldier coming home from combat has survived is disturbing, and he cannot gracefully find the way to share his painful thoughts and emotions—self-doubt, shame, guilt or trauma with others about what he’s experienced, he will find it hard to come to peace with it himself. And if he’s having flashbacks—sudden full sensory memories of things he saw in combat, or nightmares of the same—he will likely also find his body in a constant state of arousal—jumpy, tense, easily irritated and difficult to concentrate. He may begin to think he’s crazy. And he may choose avoidance, feel alienated and perhaps even self-isolate or turn to drugs or alcohol to cope.

Chris Kyle intuitively understood that he could help by reaching out and providing the same social bonds forged in a warzone to vets that could no longer find them. And he found that he could help vets to face their demons from combat experiences by taking them into settings that mirrored some of the same aspects of what they had experienced in combat. But this time they would experience it in a healing way—Kyle was offering a type of informal yet powerful experiential psychotherapy. He did this by taking mentally suffering vets out into the wild in small groups on hunting trips and it seems also taking Eddie Ray Routh to a shooting range.

In doing so Chris Kyle was reaching out to those who couldn’t give voice to their pain and taking them through some of the same paces of group exercises—support your buddies, work as a team, handle weapons responsibly—no one gets hurt, healing begins to occur. It seems Chris intuitively knew that to induce a partial flashback—to open a memory of a traumatic episode, just a bit, in a manageable manner and to couple that with nurture, attachment, understanding and support can be so very healing.

But perhaps what Chris Kyle overestimated—no one can now know—was his own ability to control those episodes. He was a Navy Seal after-all and had likely banished fear from his own life. He didn’t fear to put a weapon in a suffering man’s hands to help him see that he could handle it again, that he could be safe, supported, accepted back in—that he could reenter the human race again via Chris’s unorthodox—but by all accounts—highly effective and loving methods.

But what Chris maybe didn’t realize is that when someone induces a flashback voluntarily or not—it is an extremely powerful thing and there’s got to be a way to shut it down if it begins to flood the person—making him confused about if he’s back there in the horrible memory, or set of memories—or in the here and now. And if the person is holding a gun when a flashback overtakes him it can be a terrible thing. Chris Kyle was a hero. He trained long and hard and he evidently had a heart of gold. But he maybe didn’t know that sometimes a flashback can become so overwhelming that it becomes a real and living nightmare.

While no one knows yet—and we may never know what really happened out at Rough Creek Lodge—we do know a few things. Chris Kyle worked from the heart. He knew a lot and he was reaching guys, taking them through their paces again, in a highly experiential method of healing their wounds. It seems that Eddie Ray Routh may have been just too wounded to reach in that way. Despite Routh’s crime, my heart goes out to both of them.

Anne Speckhard is the author of Talking to Terrorists

Talking to Terrorists:Understanding the Psycho-Social Motivations of Militant Jihadi Terrorists, Mass Hostage Takers, Suicide Bombers & Martyrs to Combat Terrorism in Prison & Community Rehabilitation