Documenting Torture: The Social Fate of SufferingProposal for Dissertation ResearchJared Del Rosso

Introduction

Torture is neither civilian nor military, nor is it specifically French; it is a plague infecting our whole era. – Jean-Paul Sartre

Despite global monitoring efforts that reveal the systematic use of torture in

democratic and authoritarian states (Peters 1986:160) and despite current

controversies surrounding its use during America’s Global War on Terror, torture

remains an understudied ‘social problem’ (but see Brown 2005; Einolf 2007;

Gordon 2005; Lazreg 2007 for notable exceptions). Indeed, sociology has failed to

attend to Sartre’s diagnosis of his era - a twentieth-century barely half-made - as

infected by torture. We cannot speak of a sociology of torture and one sociologist of

violence, writing only sixteen years after Sartre’s statement on torture, theorizes it

as one of several kinds of antiquated type of violence, ‘no longer part of the

dominant ceremonial order, although we still find individual cases’ (Collins

1974:436). The relegation of torture to pre-modern societies reinforces popular

beliefs about torture as belonging to historical, cultural, and political ‘others’ (Peters

1986:149; Rejali 2007). Moreover, when the use of torture by democratic states is

imagined as discontinuous with modern sensibilities and social structures, the

urgency and apparent appropriateness of approaching torture with sociological

theories and methods lessens. Against this tendency, this dissertation draws the

interdisciplinary study of torture into conversation with the sociology of social

problems and the sociology of science. Specifically, this study puts the

constructionist approaches of these sub-disciplines to use to examine the processes

by which various institutions document and make claims about torture during

America’s Global War on Terror. This focus is responsive to several major studies of

torture (Cohen 2001; Peters 1986; Rejali 2007; Scarry 1985). These studies share a

concern with contemporary discourse about torture; specifically, they converge on

the observation that the communication of torture must contend with vocabularies

that are poorly suited to articulate the pain caused by contemporary torture.

Though these studies converge on this observation, none of them seek to

systematically examine a historical case of claims-making about torture. Because of

this, we know little about the specific claims-making techniques by which torture is

obscured and even less about the techniques by which torture is socially

acknowledged.

In this dissertation, I intend to address the relative ignorance of sociology to

the phenomena of torture and questions pointed to, but not yet adequately attended

to, by the study of torture. Specifically, I propose a qualitative content analysis. I

will analyze three sets of documents. The first set includes reports and publications

of four human rights organizations that attempted to monitor and publicize these

violations. The organizations under study are Amnesty International (AI), Center

for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Physicians for

Human Rights (PHR). Second, I will examine congressional hearings and reports

related to detainment and interrogation policies. The last set of documents is

comprised of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Defense (DoD),

Department of Justice (DoJ), and Department of Army (DA) investigations and

reports of detainment and interrogation policies. These three sets of data document

violence – some of which can be classified as torture. While studying how these

institutions attempt to document violence and argue that acts of violence belong to a

certain category of violence (abuse, mistreatment, torture, etc.), I will pay particular

attention to the varying relationships between these claims about American torture,

the various raw materials (Nichols 1997:324 [emphasis original]) used to construct

claims, and the context of citation (Latour 1987:35) – the range of statements that

the claim acts upon - in which the claim is situated. I am particularly interested in

examining the processes by which these institutions attempt to:

(1) Typify (Best 1995) the violence done to prisoners as a particular kind of

violence,

(2) Determine the scope of the violence done to prisoners,

(3) Explain the violence done to prisoners,

(4) Represent the experience of prisoners’ pain,

(5) Represent the consequences of violence – for victims, their families, and

their communities, those who commit the violence, and any other

relevant bystanders and communities.

The primary objective of this dissertation is to respond to research questions

derived from the literature on torture. These questions are: How do various (and

sometimes competing) institutions document torture? With what evidence do they

support the claims that they are documenting? How do these institutions counter

opposing claims? Finally, how do these institutions come to know, document, give

meaning, acknowledge, and/or cast doubt on the nature of pain caused by

contemporary forms of torture? More generally, this study will represent a

contribution to a social scientific understanding of social responses to torture,

which remains an understudied aspect of torture. Though statements about social

responses to torture abound in major and minor studies of torture, most are

primarily studies of torture as a ‘social fact’ rather than of meaning making

surrounding torture. Stanley Cohen’s (2001) research represents a notable

exception; however, his work is primarily concerned with the denial of torture and

largely overlooks the social processes and rhetorical strategies by which torture is

acknowledged. Moreover, his work is first and foremost a study of social responses

to atrocities, not torture. As such, it does not offer a focused and historically

grounded analysis of social responses of torture.

At the same time, my hope is to contribute to the constructionist study of

social problems. To date, research within the social problems constructionist

framework has ignored the ‘plague infecting our whole era.’ This research, then,

will attempt to bring torture to the sociology of social problems. Additionally, this

research will add to the constructionist toolkit of social problems theory by opening

it to concepts and perspectives associated with the sociology of science, particularly

as done by Bruno Latour. Despite affinities between the approaches (Berbier 2001),

the perspectives have rarely been made to converse with each other (see Johnson

[Latour] 1988 for a hostile attempt at inter-constructionist dialogue between social

problems theory and the sociology of science).

Literature Review

Jean-Paul Sartre opens his introduction to Henri Alleg’s memoir of torture

with these two paragraphs:

In 1932, in the Rue Lauriston (the Gestapo headquarters in Paris). Frenchmen were screaming in agony and pain: all France could hear them. In those days, the outcome of the war was uncertain and we did not want to think about the future. Only one thing seemed impossible in any circumstances: that one day men should be made to scream by those acting in our name.

There is no such word as impossible: in 1958, in Algiers, people are tortured regularly and systematically. Everyone from M. Lacoste (Minister Resident for Algeria) to the farmers in Aveyron, knows this is so, but almost no one talks of it. At most, a few thin voices trickle through the silence. France is almost as mute as during the Occupation, but then she had the excuse of being gagged. (1958: 13, 14)

A half-century after the publication of The Question, Americans speak of torture, but

the malleability of language and meaning are used, often cynically, to cast doubt on

the suffering of detainees. The Bush Administration’s reconstruction of torture was

narrow enough to authorize President Bush’s statement that the United States does

not torture. Its new definition stated that “physical pain amounting to torture must

be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as

organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death” (Greenberg and Dratel

2005:xiii). But the problem of communicating torture exceeds President George W.

Bush, his cabinet, their lawyers, and a few dozen memoranda. In this section of my

proposal, I review three major obstacles to the successful communication of torture

– ambiguity about the definition of torture, rhetorical strategies of denial, and the

privacy of pain.

Defining Torture

The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman,

and Degrading Treatment and Punishment 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, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or

other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Sociologist Christopher J. Einolf has pointed to the problematic status of this

definition for sociology, as well as law. To the former, the definition is problematic

because it “rests on modern, Western standards of morality and law” and so “it is

not useful in a cross-cultural, historical study of torture” (2007:102). Einolf argues

that “the legal definition is also problematic in that it makes the motives of the

person inflicting the ‘severe pain and suffering’ essential to the definition of torture”

and “motive may be impossible to determine in many historical cases” (2007:102-

103).

Einolf argues for a more narrowly written definition of torture, “leaving out

questions of morality or motive” (2007:103). In so doing, he follows the lead of

Edward Peters and Darius Rejali, both of whom identify the ambiguity surrounding

definitions of torture as one of the major obstacles to research of it, as well as social

responses to it. Both also argue for a redefinition of torture. Peters and Rejali are

particularly critical of the tendency of Western critics of oppression to continually

expand the definition of torture to include more and more forms of suffering.

(Peters refers to this as the “sentimental” vocabulary of torture (1985:150-151).)

When stretched to include all forms of social suffering, “torture” is both diluted and

relativized.1

Einolf, Peters, and Rejali are all primarily concerned with redefining torture

so as to produce a coherent analytical object. Their studies are not primarily

constructionist in orientation. Thus, none of their works include a systematic study

of how social actors categorize acts of violence as torture or as some other form of

violence. In studying how various institutions typify the violence done during

detainment and interrogation during the global war on terror, this dissertation

takes up this task.

Rhetorical Strategies of Denial

1 Peters writes, “It is difficult for people who use the term for anything that seems synonymous with cruelty to carry much conviction when they use it for something close to its original meaning” (1985:152), while Rejali observes, “[a]ny human activity is probably torture to someone, and a word that potentially characterizes every human experience is likely to be very slippery indeed” (2007:38).

Those concerned with documenting torture must contend with historically

effective rhetorical strategies of denial. Speaking of torture through euphemism is

one such strategy. Rejali, for instance, warns of accepting the euphemisms

employed during the War on Terror to name various techniques employed against

the detained: “One might well remember that other states notorious for torture also

did not refer to their interrogation methods as torture. The Nazis used the

expression ‘sharpened interrogation’ and the French in Algeria insisted on the

expression ‘pushed interrogation’” (2007:358). In her study of French torture in

Algiers, Marnia Lazreg argues that euphemism has the effect of containing torture

“by sinking it below the level of consciousness” (2008:112).

In addition to euphemism, Stanley Cohen provides several useful concepts

for understanding the rhetoric of denial. According to Cohen, official denial of

torture is likely to take at least one of three forms: literal denial, interpretive denial,

and implicatory denial; sometimes, these are employed in sequence: “if one strategy

does not work, the next is tried” (2001:103).

(1) Literal denial – Literal denial involves the claim that “nothing happened.”

Cohen views these as most effectively employed by authoritarian regimes, who

operate “without accountability and insulated from external scrutiny” (2001:104).

However, this strategy can also be employed by democracies, as Cohen and others

have observed (Cohen 2001; Rejali 2007). According to Cohen, this strategy

typically involves challenges to the veracity of those accusing a government or

regime of wrong-doing (2001:116).

(2) Interpretive denial – It is difficult to deny that anything happened given

“greater international visibility and transparency” (2001:105); it is also difficult to

deny that anything happened if compelling evidence indisputability documents that

something happened. Interpretive denial involves a denial of the particular

interpretive framework through which critics of a government or regime view the

documented atrocity.

No, what happened was not really torture, genocide or extra-judicial killing, but something else. The harm is cognitively reframed and then reallocated to a different, less pejorative class of event. (2001:106)

Interestingly, Cohen argues that the legal frameworks through which atrocities –

particularly torture – are understood often facilitate interpretive denial. (Cohen

does not cite Peters’ argument that a narrow legal definition of torture prevents

denial, but he is implicitly countering this argument.) Describing law as a “’plastic

medium’” (Cohen 2001:106), Cohen argues that debating ‘whether a particular

method of interrogation is ‘acceptable’ rather than ‘ill-treatment’, or ‘ill-treatment’

rather than ‘torture’, is no different from disputes in an ordinary trial about

manslaughter rather than first-degree murder.’ (2001:106). However, interpretive

denial cynically uses this plasticity to define an atrocity as a lesser type of crime.

(3) Implicatory denial - Implicatory denial does not dispute that atrocity

happened, nor does it necessarily dispute the interpretive frame through which that

atrocity is understood. Instead, implicatory denial involves the argument that what

happened is justified (2001:109). Cohen identifies several rhetorical strategies by

which a government or regime accomplishes implicatory denial. These include

righteousness – the argument that “alternative sets of values can, under certain

circumstances (or in regard to certain people), override universals” - such as human

rights standards; necessity; denial of the victim – typically by “displacing blame on

those who are harmed” (2001:110); and contextualization and uniqueness – accusing

“critics of not knowing, understanding or mentioning the context in which the

violations took place” (2001:111).

As noted above, I am interested in studying the social processes by which

torture is given a name. I am particularly interested in examining the social

processes by which interpretive frames are constructed, as well as the social

processes by which the scope of torture is documented and responsibility

apportioned. Finally, I will pay particular attention to whether these strategies of

denial are present in the various documents under study or if those documenting

torture appear aware of them and, thus, attempt to construct arguments that

counter these strategies.

The Privacy of Pain

In an influential analysis of torture, Elaine Scarry concerns herself with the

gap between a speaker-in-pain and a listener-without-pain; this gap is largely a

product of the fact that pain is private, without “referential content” outside of

consciousness (Scarry 1986:5). The “inexpressibility of pain” (1986:3) has political

consequences – namely that “the failure to express pain” or the failure to

understand expressed pain as referring back to the body of the person suffering,

“will always work to allow its appropriation and conflation with debased forms of

power” (1986:14).

Scarry studies torture as one type of “debased forms of power.”

Within the physical events of torture, the torturer ‘has’ nothing: he has only an absence, the absence of pain. In order to experience his distance from the prisoner in terms of ‘having,’ their physical distance is translated into a verbal distance: the absence of pain is a presence of world; the presence of pain is the absence of world. Across this set of inversions pain becomes power. The direct equation, ‘the larger the prisoner’s pain, the larger the torturer’s world’ is mediated by the middle term, ‘the prisoner’s absence of world’: the larger the prisoner’s pain (the smaller the prisoner’s world and therefore, by comparison) the larger the torturer’s world. (Scarry 1985:36,37)

Language plays a central role in Scarry’s analysis. First, Scarry illustrates how the

torturer destroys the world of the tortured by turning objects such as culture, social

institutions, shelter and everyday objects, and the victim’s body into weapons,

symbols of the torturer and his regimes agency and power. Scarry then shows that

the destruction of the victim’s language and sounds is pursued and achieved during

torture. According to Scarry this is significant because ‘a human being inhabits,

humanizes, and makes his own space much larger than that occupied by his body

alone.’ The practices by which this happens are several. Interrogators may

appropriate the recorded or written confessions of the victims, force the victim to

speak and singing during torture, and, often in combination with forced speaking,

force the cessation of screams. Additionally, torture often involves the

weaponization of sounds and language, as cries and calls of others – whether

authentic or fabricated by the torturers – come to torment the detained.

Recently, Darius Rejali has taken up Scarry’s analysis of language and torture

to offer a timely critique of the diverse practices of contemporary torture that aim to

leave no mark on the body of the tortured. Alternatively referring to these practices

as stealth torture, covert torture, and clean torture, Rejali challenges Scarry,

claiming that pain is neither necessary, nor sufficient for torture to destroy the

world of the tortured (Rejali 2007:441). Instead of emphasizing ‘the gap between

the brain and the tongue’ (2007:443), Rejali shows that torture, particularly in its

covert or stealth forms, positions the inexpressibility of pain in the ‘gap between

speakers and their communities’ (2007:443). Specifically, stealth torture denies

pain ‘a home in the body,’ ‘tangling victims and their communities in doubts,

uncertainties, and illusions’ (2007:443).

Despite their differences, Scarry and Rejali both hold out the possibility that

communal responses to torture will affirm the pain of the victim as one way of

undoing torture’s effects. In her otherwise bleak chapter, Scarry writes of various

efforts to communicate with victims of torture, especially those of Amnesty

International,

…to restore to each person tortured his or her voice, to use language to let pain give an accurate account of itself, to present regimes that torture with a deluge of letters and telegrams, a deluge of voices speaking on behalf of, voices speaking in the voice of, the person silenced, these acts that return to the prisoner his most elemental political ground as well as his psychic content and density are finally almost physiological in their power of alteration. […] By holding that world in place, or by giving the pain a place in the world, sympathy lessens the power of sickness and pain, counteracts the force with which a person in great pain or sickness can be swallowed alive by the body. (Scarry 1985:50)

Rejali promotes something akin to a political literacy of torture, in which political

communities – which themselves must be produced – ‘learn to hear torture victims

and read their bodies’ (Rejali 2007:31).

In their solutions to the inexpressibility of pain, both Scarry and Rejali

recognize the need for political communities to develop a language that can

accurately describe, acknowledge, and, then, respond to the pain caused by

contemporary torture. Neither, though, engages in a systematic study of how

communities hear victims of torture, read their bodies, and speak of their suffering

This dissertation takes up this task – examining how three communities have

documented and represented the suffering caused by torture.

Constructionist Foundations

The issues studied in this dissertation address broad concerns from the

social study of violence and torture. However, this study examines these

substantive issues by studying the social processes by which violence becomes

meaningful within particular discourses. As such, this study is indebted to the

constructionist perspectives of social problems theory and the constructionist

approach proposed by sociologist of science Bruno Latour.

The constructionist approach to the study of social problems privileges the

activities of claimsmakers – ‘individuals or groups making assertions of grievances

and claims with respect to some putative condition’ (Spector and Kitsuse 1973:146)

as the appropriate object of social problems research. Typification refers to part of

the claimsmaking process - that process by which ‘claimsmakers characterize a

problem's nature,’ argue ‘that a problem is best understood from a particular

perspective,’ and, given that perspective, ‘locate the problem's causes and

recommend a solution’ (Best 1995:8-9). Part of the process of typification is the

transformation of various ‘raw materials’ to produce typifying examples (Nichols

1997:324 [emphasis original]) of the problems.

This research takes up several issues relevant to the constructionist

approach to the study of social problems. As noted above, I am interested in the

interpretive frameworks through which the violence done in Guantanamo Bay,

Afghanistan, and Iraqi prisons is understood Additionally, I will examine how

competing characterizations of this violence determine the scope of violence and

distribute accountability for it. Finally, I will examine what "raw materials" – types

of evidence that particular types of violent acts did or did not occur - are used in the

construction of these various accounts. I am particularly interested in examining

whether (and how) these discourses attempt to transform pain into usable evidence

to support or counter claims.

In addition to social problems theory, I have found it helpful to draw from the

work of sociologist of science and technology Bruno Latour. Latour has argued that

the fate of any claim – whether it is ignored, disputed, or turned into a fact – is

collective. ‘By itself a given sentence is neither a fact nor a fiction; it is made so by

others, later on’ (Latour 1987:25 [emphasis original]). Given this, Latour is drawn to

what we might call the social life of statements; he is particularly interested in the

ways that statements are modified – either strengthened and made ‘solid enough to

render some other consequences necessary’ or weakened by leading ‘a statement…

towards its conditions of production and explain detail why it is sold or weak’

(1986:23). Latour illustrates these modalities (the former is called positive and the

latter negative) with an example from Cold War politics.

(1) New Soviet missiles aimed against Minutemen silos are accurate to 100 metres.

(2) Since [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres] this means that Minutemen are not safe any more, and this is the main reason why the MX weapon system is necessary.

(3) Advocates of the MX in the Pentagon cleverly leak information contending that [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres][…]

(4) The undercover agent 009 in Novosibirsk whispered to the housemaid before dying that he had heard in bars that some officers thought that some of these [missiles] in ideal test conditions might [have an accuracy] somewhere between [100] and 1000] metres or this is at least how the report came to Washington. (Latour 1987:22)

Statement (2) is an example of a positive modality. It does not contest the validity of

statement (1) and, more importantly, builds statement (1) into a second statement.

Statements (3) and (4) do not build statement (1) into a second statement; instead,

they move statement (1) back to its origin and dispute its validity. As I am

particularly interested in studying how competing claims about violence are

weakened or strengthened within several discourses, I will pay particular attention

to this process.

In his analysis of scientific articles, Latour shows that ‘one text acts on others

to make them more in keeping with its claims’ (1987:35); he refers to this as the

‘context of citation’ (1987:35 [emphasis original]). In conducting my

summer research of Review of Department of Defense Detention and Interrogation

Operations, a congressional hearing, I have found it useful to pay attention to the

ways that the claim that the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib prison show

idiosyncratic behavior and isolated incidents is built-up and strengthened, so as to

anticipate dissent and control the moves of potential objectors (Latour 1987:57), by

associating or disassociating the claim with subsidiary statements (if not

indisputable facts) gathered in a range of reports and investigations done at Abu

Ghraib prison. In other words, these subsidiary statements constitute the context of

citation in which a claim about the photographs is constructed. I intend to study

this process as well.

Research Design

This dissertation will involve a qualitative content analysis of publications

and reports written by selected human rights organizations during the war on

terror. I will first discuss the types of primary sources analyzed in this study and

then discuss the analytic approach of the study.

Data

Data used in this study will be collected from human rights organizations

reports and publications, congressional hearings, and FBI, DoD, DoJ, and DA reports

and investigations. These documents, which are listed in the appendix, are available

as .pdf and/or .html files online. They total approximately 5,776 pages; however, I

do not intend to code all 5,776 pages. First, I believe that this number over-

estimates the total number of pages in these documents. For instance, Review of

Department of Defense Detention and Interrogation Operations, a congressional

hearing, is, alone, 1,480 pages in length; however, this document contains only

about 350 pages of statements, questions, and responses by senators and witnesses.

Approximately 1,100 pages are added documents, such as reports and newspaper

articles, some of which are already part of the third set of data used in this study.

Additionally, I intend to read all data before beginning coding; when doing this, I

hope to produce a sample of these documents of approximately 2,000-2,750 pages

by removing from the study parts of or entire documents unrelated to the topics

studied in this dissertation.

My reasons for selecting these forms of data are several. First, these three

sets of documents all have to do with the reporting and documentation of violence –

some of which can be classified as torture. The increase in monitoring of torture is

one of the motives for contemporary democracies that torture to “invest in less

visible and hence harder to document, techniques” (2007:43). Significantly, many of

these “less visible and hence harder to document” techniques – such as sleep

deprivation, stress position, and water torture – have been employed during the war

on terror. Those who would investigate, document, and/or monitor contemporary

torture must confront the “doubts, uncertainties, and illusions” in which

contemporary torture tangles “victims and their communities” (Rejali 2007:443).

This confrontation is particularly important to those who would oppose torture. In

fact, some major studies of torture during the war on terror seek not only to

document that human rights violations occurred, but that the human rights

violations they have studied do, in fact, constitute torture. A prime example of this

is PHR’s Broken Laws, Broken Lives.

At the same time, these categories of data represent institutions with varying

organizational proximity to the politicians who shaped American policies of

interrogation and detainment during the War on Terror. Closest to these politicians

are the individuals tasked with compiling FBI, DoD, DoJ, and DA reports and

investigations. The individuals who lead these investigations are appointed and,

frequently, the scope of the studies are established by high-ranking officials within

each department, some of whom (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld, General Ricardo Sanchez)

produced or signed memoranda and other documents that influenced military

practices of detainment and interrogation during the war on terror. These studies

have been criticized by those with greater distance from the executive branch for

actively seeking to produce a ‘bad apples’ framework for understanding American

use of torture and for typifying the violence as abuse, rather than torture. I expect

to observe the construction of this frame within many of these investigations;

however, I will leave this study open to emergent codes and themes within all data

sources.

I expect that the congressional hearings will likely involve more

controversial and, thus, contested claims about the scope, nature, and causes of

torture during the war on terror. This is largely because Congress is tasked with

oversight of the executive branch and because it can engage in partisan politics.

Additionally, controversies about claims tend to be heightened during hearings, as

they involve interrogative sequences, which "tend to lead up to arguments and

counterarguments" (Lynch and Bogard 1995:148). In addition to tempering

consensus about claims, I expect that these aspects of hearings, as well as the fact

that they are made up of individual speakers who may choose to represent a range

of perspectives, will result in discourse about torture steeped (stylistically) in

subjectivity. Conversely, I expect the investigations and reports produced both by

the executive branch and the human rights groups will more frequently state their

claims in the detached style of objectivity.

Finally, human rights groups have considerable distance from the executive

branch and the American military due to their political independence. They also

have a commitment to monitoring and publicizing instances of human rights abuses.

I expect to find consensus within this discourse and claims that torture, rather than

abuse or mistreatment, occurred.

While the claims made within human rights investigations and executive

branch investigations may seem like foregone conclusions, I intend to keep this

study open to emergent themes. More importantly, the primary objective of this

study is to study the processes by which these claims are constructed, including the

types of evidence mobilized to support them and the set of additional statements

and citations made relevant to the claims.

Analytic Approach

The questions that this dissertation raises are well-suited for a qualitative

content analysis. (I am not ruling out the necessity of quantifying codes; however,

my concerns in this dissertation are primarily qualitative in nature). Constructionist

researchers engaged in similar research have also effectively used a qualitative

approach to content analysis (Jerolmack 2008; Johnson 1995; Malone, Boyd, and

Bero 2000; Mulcahy 1995). Such an approach to content analysis allows for the

collection of "numerical and narrative data" without "forcing the latter into

predefined categories" (Altheid 1987: 68).

Data analysis will involve several steps typical to qualitative research

(Creswell 2003:191).

Step 1: Organizing and Preparing the Data for Analysis in NVivo. Most of the

data used in this study can be found online. Data available online will be

downloaded and, when possible, copy-and-pasted from .pdfs to text files. This step

will also involve formatting the data to ensure ease of reading, as well as coding the

data with context variables – such as the date of creation, date of publication, and

the author of the data.

Step 2: Familiarizing Myself with the Data. Before coding data, I will read and

memo on the data. I will pay particular attention to potential codes and themes in

the data, using these within Step 3. During this time, I will also organize the data

into a tentative coding order, based, primarily, on the relevance of the data to the

various questions this dissertation raises.

Step 3: Coding. Data coding will be an iterative process, during which time

passages will be coded then clustered and recoded. I will, of course, memo on codes

and the data as I go. Within the bounds of the questions this dissertation raises,

codes and themes will primarily emerge from the data; in other words, though I

enter this research process with general concerns that will orient my attention

towards some parts of the data at the expense of others, I will not enter this

research with pre-determined codes or themes.

Step 4: Clustering Codes into Themes. Step 4 will begin during the recoding

phase of Step 3, but will continue after the data has been recoded. Themes will be

generated across the several categories of data; however, I will be attentive to

differences within and across categories, as well as differences in themes over time.

Step 5: Representing the Data. As noted above, I may quantify some words,

codes, or themes for to represent their occurrences in charts and figures. However,

this way of representing the data will be employed if – and only if – it furthers the

qualitative project of this study. More likely, the themes that will serve as the basis

of the interpretation of the data will be represented by interesting, significant, and

representative passages. Finally, if possible and, again, if it furthers the qualitative

project of this study, I may produce diagrams as representations of the themes.

Step 6: Interpreting the Data. My interpretation of the data will be (1) always

in relation to the literature on the social study of violence and torture and (2)

always with an eye toward the fate of themes present in the data over time.

Working Bibliography

1988. Picturing Power: Visual Depiction and Social Relations. Edited by Gordon Fyfe and John Law. New York, NY: Routledge,

2008. Handbook of Constructionist Research. James A . Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ahluwalia, Pal. 2006. Delivering Freedom: Australia’s Witnessing of Abu Ghraib. Journal of Visual Culture. 5:93-

Alleg, Henri. 1958. The Question. New York, NY: George Braziller. Altheide, David L. 1986. "Ethnographic Content Analysis." Qualitative Sociology.

10: 65-77.Andén-Papadopoulos, Kari. 2008. "The Abu Ghraib torture photographs : frames,

visual culture, and the power of images." Journalism. 9(1):5-30.Apel, Dora. 2005. "Torture Culture: Lynching Photographs and the Images of Abu

Ghraib." art journal. Summer: 89-100.Asad, Talal. 1997. On Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment. Pp.

285-307. Social Suffering. Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das, and Margaret Lock, eds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Barthes, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Baudrillard, Jean. 2006. War Porn. Journal of Visual Culture. 5:86-88.Beccaria, Cesare. 1986. On Crimes and Punishments. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Publishing.Bennett, W. Lance, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. 2006. "None Dare

Call It Torture: Indexing the Limits of Press Independence in the Abu Ghraib Scandal." Journal of Communication. 56: 467-485.

Berbrier, Mitch. 2000. Ethnicity in the Making: Ethnicity Work. The Ethnicity Industry, and a Constructionist Framework for Research. Perspectives on Social Problems. 12:69-88/

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Best, Joel. 1995. "Typification and Social Problems Construction." in Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, edited by Joel Best. New York: Aldine De Gruyer.

Best, Joel. 2008. Social Problems. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company. Bogard, Cynthia J. 2001. Claimsmakers and Contexts in Early Constructions of

Homelessness: A Comparison of New York City and Washington, D.C. Symbolic Interaction. 24(4): 425-454.

Brothers, Caroline. 1997. War and Photography: A cultural history. New York, NY: Routledge.

Brown, Michelle. 2005. "'Setting the Conditions' for Abu Ghraib: The Prison Nation Abroad." American Quarterly. 57(3): 973-997.

Butler, Judith. 2005. Giving an Account of Oneself. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.

Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious Life: The Power of Mourning and Violence. New York, NY: Verso.

Callon, Michel and Bruno Latour. 1981. “Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them do so.” Pp. 277-303 in Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, edited by K. Knorr-Cetina and A. Cicourel. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Callon, Michel. 1987. Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. Pp. 83-106 In The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Callon, Michel. 1981. Struggles and Negotiations to Define What is Problematic and What is Not: The Sociological Translation. Pp. 197-220 in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Edited by Karin D. Knorr, Roger Krohn, and Richard Whitley. Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Callon, Michel. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay.” Pp. 196-233 in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, edited by J.Law. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Cavell, Stanley. 1997. Comments on Veena Das’s Essay “Language and Body: Transactions in the Construction of Pain. Pp. 93-97. Social Suffering. Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das, and Margaret Lock, eds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Chang, Gordon C. and Hugh B. Mehan. 2008. Why we must attack Iraq: Bush’s reasoning practices and argumentation system. Discourse & Society. 19(4):453-482.

Cohen, Stanely. 2001. States of Denial: Knowing about Attrocities and Suffering. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Collins, Randall. 1974. Three Faces of Cruelty: Towards a Comparative Sociology of Violence. Theory and Society. 1(4): 415-440.

Danner, Mark. 2004. Torture and Truth. New York, NY: New York Review of Books.Das, Veena. 1997. Language and Body: Transactions in the Construction of Pain. Pp

67-91. Social Suffering. Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das, and Margaret Lock, eds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Depelteau, Francois. 2008. Relational Thinking; A Critique of Co-Deterministic Theories of Structure and Agency. Sociological Theory. 26(1): 51-73.

Dershowitz, Alan M. 2003. The Torture Warrant: A Response to Professor Strauss. New York Law School Law Review . 48:275-294.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. 2007. Feminism's Assumptions Upended. South Central Review. 24(1): 170-173.

Einolf, Christopher J. 2007. The Rise and Fall of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis. Sociological Theory. 25(2): 101-121.

Elias, Norbert. 1978. What is Sociology? New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of

Sociology. 103(2): 281-317.Entman, Robert M. Punctuating the Homogeneity of Institutionalized News:

Abusing Prisoners at Abu Ghraib Versus Killing Civilians at Fallujah. Politicla Communication. 23:215-224.

Fanon, Frantz. 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. New York, NY: Grove Press.Feldman, Allen. Violence and Vision: The Prosthetics and Aesthetics of Terror. 46-

78. Violence and Subjectivity. Veena Das, Arthur Kleinman, Mamphela Ramphele, and Pamela Reynolds, eds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Fiske, Susan T., Lasana T. Harris, and Amy J.C. Ruddy. 2004. Why Ordinary People Torture Enemy Prisoners. Science. 306:1482-1483.

Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

French, Lindsay. 2002. Exhibiting Terror. Truth Claims: Representation and Human Rights. Mark Philip Bradley and Patrice Petro, editors. 131-155. New Brunswich, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Gamson, William A. and Andrew Modigliani. 1989. Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. The American Journal of Sociology. 95(1): 1-37.

Gamson, William A., David Croteau, William Hoynes, and Theodore Sasson. 1992. Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality. Annual Review of Sociology. 18:373-393.

Garfinkel, Harold, Michael Lynch, and Eric Livingston. 1981. “The Work of Discovering Science Construed With Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11:2 (1981:June) p.131-158.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gee, James Paul. 2005. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gordon, Avery F. 2006. "Abu Ghraib: Imprisonment and the war on terror." Race & Class. 48: 42- 59.

Gordon, Avery. 1997. Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Gourevitch, Phillip and Errol Morris. 2008. Standard Operating Procedure. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Greenberg, Karen J., Joshua L. Dratel, and Anthony Lewis. The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. Cambrodige University Press.

Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Haraway, Donna J. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspectives. 183-201. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York, NY: Routledge.

Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Ibarra, Peter R. and John I. Kitsuse. 1993. “Vernacular Constituents of Moral Discourse: An Interactionist Proposal for the Study of Social Problems” Pp. 25-58 in Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory, edited by James A. Holstein and Gale Miller. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Jagodzinski, Jan. 2006. The Trauma of the Image: Prisoner ‘Abuse’ in Abu Ghraib Prison. Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education. 6(1)

Jerolmack, Colin. 2008. How Pigeons Became Rats: The Cultural-Spatial Logic of Problem Animals. Social Problems. 55: 72-94.

Johnson, Jim. [Bruno Latour] 1988. Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer. Social Problems. 35(3): 298-310

Johnson, Jim. 1995. "Horror Stories and the Construction of Child Abuse." in Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, edited by Joel Best. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Kear, Adrian. 2005. The Anxiety of the Images. Parallax. 11(3): 107-116.Kennedy, Rory. 2007. Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. Moxie Firecracker Films.Kleinman, Arthur and Joan Kleinman. 1997. The Appeal of Experience; The Dismay

of Images: Cultural Appropriations of Suffering in Our Times. 1-23. Social Suffering. Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das, and Margaret Lock, eds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Konstantinidou, Christina. 2007. Death, lamentation and the photographic representation of the Other during the Second Iraq War in Greek newspapers. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 10(2):147-166.

Latour, Bruno. 1983. Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. Pp 141-170 in Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Latour, Bruno. 1988. The Politics of Explanation: An Alternative. in Steve Woolgar (editor) Knowledge and Reflexivity, New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge Sage, London, pp.155-177.

Latour, Bruno. 1996. On Interobjectivity. http://bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/063.html. Accessed on 9 December 2008.

Latour, Bruno. 1999. On Recalling ANT. 15-25. Actor Network Theory and After. Law, John and John Hassard, editors. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Latour, Bruno. 2000. When Things Strike Back: a possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. The British Journal of Sociology. 51(1): 107-123.

Latour, Bruno. 2001. Technology is Society Made Durable. 103-131. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. John Law, editor. New York, NY: Routledge.

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social. New York: Oxford University Press.Latour, Bruno. 1981. Is it Possible to Reconstruct the Research Process? Sociology

of a Brain Peptide. Pp. 53-76 in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Edited by Karin D. Knorr, Roger Krohn, and Richard Whitley. Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Camridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, Bruno. 1992. Where are the Missing Masses: Sociology of a Few Mundane Artefacts. Pp. 225-258 in From Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, eds., Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Law, John and Ruth Benschop. 1997. Resisting pictutres: representation, distribution and ontological politics. Pp 159-182 in Ideas of Difference: Social Spaces and the Labour of Division edited by Kevin Hetherington and Rolland Munro. Malden, MA.

Law, John. 1999. After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. 1-14. Actor Network Theory and After. Law, John and John Hassard, editors. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Law, John. 2003. ‘Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity‘, published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Notes-on-ANT.pdf

Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York,NY: Routledge.

Law, John. 1987. Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion. Pp. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Lingis, Alphonso. 2006. The Effects of the Pictures. Journal of Visual Culture. 5:83-86.

Loseke, Donileen R. 2003. Thinking about Social Problems. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Lynch, Michael and David Bogen. 1996. The Spectacle of History: speech, text, and memory at the Iran-Contra hearings . Durham: Duke University Press.

Malone, Ruth, Elizabeth Boyd, and Lisa A. Bero. 2000. "Science in the News: Journalists' Constructions of Passive Smoking as a Social Problem." Social Studies of Science. 30: 713-735.

Maran, Rita. 1989. Torture: The Role of Ideology in the French-Algerian War. New York, NY: Praeger.

Mayer, Jane. 2008. The Dark Side. New York, NY: Doubleday.Miller, Gale and James A. Holstein, editors. Social Problems in Everyday Life: Studies

of Social Problems Work. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.Mirzoeff, Nicholas. 2005. Watching Babylon: The War in Iraq and Global Visual

Culture. New York, NY: Routledge. Mirzoeff, Nicholas. 2006. "Invisible Empire: Visual Culture, Embodied Spectacle,

and Abu Ghraib." Radical History Review. 95: 21–44.Mitchell, W.J.T. 2005. The Unspeakable and the Unimaginable: Word and Image in a

Time of Terror. E.L.H. 72(2):291-308.Mol, Annemaria. 1999. Ontological Politics: A word and some questions. 74-89.

Actor Network Theory and After. Law, John and John Hassard, editors. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Morris, David B. 1997. About Suffering: Voice, Genre, and Moral Community. Pp 25-45. Social Suffering. Arthur Kleinman, Veena Das, and Margaret Lock, eds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Morris, Errol. 2007. "Will the Real Hooded Man Please Stand Up." The New York Times. http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/will-the-real-hooded-man-please-stand-up/#more-11

Morris, Errol. 2008. Standard Operating Procedure. Culver City, CA: Sony Pictures Classic.

Mulcahy, Aogán. 1995. "Claims-Making and the Construction of Legitimacy: Press Coverage of the 1981 Northern Irish Hunger Strike." Social Problems. 42: 449-467

Nichols, Lawrence T. 1997. "Social Problems as Landmark Narratives: Bank of Boston, Mass Media and 'Money Laundering.'" Social Problems. 44: 324-341.

Orwell, George. 1981. “Politics and the English Language.” Pp. 156-170 in A Collection of Essays. New York, NY: Harvest Book.

Peters, Edward. 1985. Torture. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.Pfohl, Stephen. 1992. Death at the Parasite Café: Social Science (Fictions) and the

Postmodern. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Pfohl, Stephen. Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.Pickering, Andrew. 1981. The Role of Interests in High-Energy Physics: The Choice

between Charm and Colour. Pp. 107-138 in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Edited by Karin D. Knorr, Roger Krohn, and Richard Whitley. Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Pinch, Trevor J. and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1987. The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Pp. 17-50 In The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Rajiva, Lila. 2005. The Language of Empire: Abu Gharib and the American Media. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Rejali, Darius M. 2007. Torture and Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Scarry, Elaine. 1985. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schneider, Joseph W. 1985. “Social Problems Theory: The Constructionist View.” Annual Review of Sociology 11: 209-229.

Schultz, William F., editor. 2007. The Phenomenon of Torture: Readings and Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Simpson, David. 2005. The Mourning Paper. London Review of Books 26(10)Sliwinsk, Sharon. 2006. Camera War, Again. Journal of Visual Culture. 5:89-92Sontag, Susan. 1977. On Photography. New York, NY: Picador. Sontag, Susan. 2003. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York, NY: Picador. Sontag, Susan. 23 May 2004. "Regarding the Torture of Others." The New York

Times Magazine.

Spector, Malcom and John I. Kitsuse. 1973. "Social Problems: A Re-Formulation." Social Problems. 21: 145-159.

Steele, Warren. 2006. "Strange Fruit: American Culture and the Remaking of Iraqi Males at Abu Ghraib." Nebula. 3(4): 62-74.

Swidler, Ann and Jorge Arditi. 1994. The New Sociology of Knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology. 20:305-329.

Taylor, John. 1998. Body Horror: photojournalism, catastrophe and war. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Tetreault, Mary Ann. 2006. "The Sexual Politics of Abu Ghraib: Hegemony, Spectacle, and the Global War on Terror. NWSA Journal. 18(3).33-50.

Turner, Bryan A. 2006. Vulnerability and Human Rights. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

van Dijk, Teun A. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society. 4(2): 249-283.

Wagner-Pacifici, Robin. 1994. Discourse and Destruction: The City of Philadelphia versus MOVE. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Weine, Stevan. 2006. Testimony After Catastrophe: Narrating the Traumas of Political Violence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Zimbardo, Philip G. 9 May 2004. "Power turns good soldiers into 'bad apples.'" Boston Globe. <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/09/power_turns_good_soldiers_into_bad_apples/>

Appendix I: Tentative Outline(All current titles are working titles.)

Documenting Torture: The Social Fate of Suffering

(1) Introductiona. Claims-making and the study of tortureb. Description of study

(2) Chapter 1 : Categorizing violence(3) Chapter 2 : Explaining violence(4) Chapter 3 : Representing Torture(5) Chapter 4 : Representing the Consequences of Torture(6) Conclusion(7) Notes(8) References(9) Appendix I: Research Design (10) Appendix II: Documentary Data

Appendix II: Tentative Timeline

(1) January 14 2009 : Dissertation Proposal Defended(2) January – February 2009 : Steps 1 & 2

a. Organize, prepare, and read datab. Memoc. Draft Appendix II

(3) March 2009 – June 2009 : Steps 3 & 4a. Code, Recode, Cluster Codesb. Memoc. Draft Introduction, part (a) & Appendix I

(4) July 2009 – August 2009 : Steps 5 & 6a. Produce Representations & Interpret Datab. Submit Chapter 1 & Appendixes to Committee

(5) September 2009 – October 2009a. Write Chapter 2b. Submit Chapter 2 to Committee

(6) November 2010 – December 2010a. Write Chapter 3b. Submit Chapter 3 to Committee

(7) January 2010 – February 2010a. Write Chapter 4, Introduction, & Conclusionb. Submit Chapter 4, Introduction, & Conclusion to Committee

(8) March 2010 – April 2010a. Rewrite(s) & resubmissions

(9) May 2010a. Defend Dissertation

Appendix III: Documentary Sources

(1) Human Rights OrganizationsApproximately 2,496 pages

Amnesty InternationalApproximately 1,110 pages

2008

Amnesty International. May 20, 2008. USA: Where is the accountability? Health concern as charges against Mohamed al-Qahtani dismissed. (15 pages)

Amnesty International. Security and Human Rights. (54 pages)Amnesty International. August 5, 2008. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Guantánamo:

Any and all interrogation tapes must be preserved. ( 3 pages)Amnesty International. August 15, 2008. USA: Military judge hears allegations of ill-

treatment of teenager at Bagram and Guantánamo. (5 pages)Amnesty International. Remedy and accountability still absent Mohammed Jawad

subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment in Guantánamo, military judge finds. (9 pages)

Amnesty International. United States of America: From Ill-Treatment to Unfair Trial .– 72 pages

2007

Amnesty International. 21 December 2007. Unlawful detentions must end, not be transferred. (html format – unknown pages)

Amnesty International. Cruel and inhuman: Conditions of isolation for detainees at Guantánamo Bay. (34 pages)

Amnesty International. March 15, 2007. All allegations of torture must be investigated. (2 pages.)

Amnesty International. March 23, 2007. Military commissions, like CSRTs, threaten to whitewash detainee abuse. 23 March 2007. (3 pages)

Amnesty International. November 9, 2007. Slippery slopes and the politics of torture. (6 pages)

2006

Amnesty International. Amnesty International’s campaign to stop torture and ill treatment in the ‘war on terror.’ (4 pages)

Amnesty International. Terror and Counter-Terror. (16 pages)Amnesty International. US Obligation Under the Convention with Respect to Detainees

in the Context of the “War on Terror.” (70 pages.)Amnesty International. Memorandum to the US Government on the report of the UN

Committee Against Torture and the question of closing Guantánamo. (38 pages)Amnesty International. Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and ‘disappearance.’

(43 pages.)Amnesty International. Beyond Abu Ghraib: detention and torture in Iraq. (50 pages)Amnesty International. May 19, 2006. UN Committee Against Torture condemns US

detention policies, calls for change. (2 pages)Amnesty International. The Rendition of Khaled el-Masri: Macedonia / Germany / USA.

(6 pages)Amnesty International. August, 11 2006. No impunity for war crimes US administration

seeking to amend the War Crimes Act. (4 pages)Amnesty International. September 20, 2006. Rendition – torture – trial? The case of

Guantánamo detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi. (11 pages)Amnesty International. September 29, 2006. Rubber stamping violations in the “war on

terror”: Congress fails human rights. (3 pages)Amnesty International. Guantánamo: Torture and other ill-treatment. (5 pages)

2005

Amnesty International. General Information Leaflet: Torture and Ill Treatment in the 'war on terror.' (unknown pages)

Amnesty International. USA: Torture and secret detention: Testimony of the 'disappeared' in the 'war on terror.' (unknown pages)

Amnesty International. cruel. inhuman. degrades us all. stop torture and ill-treatment in the ‘war on terror.’ (24 pages)

Amnesty International. Days of adverse hardship in US detention camps - Testimony of Guantánamo detainee Jumah al-Dossari. (29 pages)

Amnesty International. Amnesty International/Reprieve conference: Torture doesn’t stop terror -- torture is Terror. (1 page)

Amnesty International. Close Guantánamo and disclose the rest. (2 pages)Amnesty International. Response to the proposed “Interrogations Procedures Act.” (3

pages)Amnesty International. Open letter to US Senators as they prepare to vote on the

nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. (3 pages)Amnesty International. Human rights not hollow words: An appeal to President George

W. Bush on the occasion of his re-inauguration. (20 pages)Amnesty International. Secret detention CASE SHEET 3. (4 pages)Amnesty International. US detentions in Afghanistan: an aide-mémoire for continued

action. (18 pages)Amnesty International. Secret detention and torture CASE SHEET 1. (3 pages)Amnesty International. Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked

executive power. (164 pages)

2004

Amnesty International. Human Dignity Denied. (202 pages)Amnesty International. An Open Letter to President George W. Bush. (6 pages)

2003

Amnesty International. We Don’t Torture People in America. (2 pages)Amnesty International. The Pain Merchants. (85 pages)Amnesty International. The Threat of a Bad Apple. (60 pages)Amnesty International. International Standards for All. (3 pages) 2002

Amnesty International. Beyond the Law Update to Amnesty International’s April Memorandum to the US Government on the rights of detainees held in US custody in Guantánamo Bay and other locations. (9 pages)

Amnesty International. Treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and GuantánamoBay undermines human rights. Memorandum to the US government. (2 pages)

2001

Amnesty International. Amnesty International's recommendations to the Security Council in relation to the Council's response to the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States of America. (2 pages)

Amnesty International. Memorandum to the US Attorney General Amnesty International’s concerns relating to the post 11 September investigations. (23 pages)

Amnesty International. Pursuing Justice, Not Revenge : Amnesty International’s position on bringing to justice those responsible for the crimes of 11 September and for abuses committed in Afghanistan. (5 pages)

Amnesty International. Apologists for torture must be challenged. (2 pages)Amnesty International. Letter from Amnesty International Secretary General to

President George W. Bush: Attacks of 11 September 2001. (2 pages)Amnesty International. USA: Amnesty International appalled at devastating attacks

against civilians. (1 page)Amnesty International. Justice, not revenge, must prevail. (1 page)

Center for Constitutional RightsApproximately 415 pages.

Center for Constitutional Rights. Guantanamo and Its Aftermath. November 2008. (136 pages)

Center for Constitutional Rights. The Story of Maher Arar: Rendition to Torture. (12 pages)

Center for Constitutional Rights. Off the Record : US Responsibility for Encorced Disappearances in the “War on Terror.” (24 pages)

Center for Constitutional Rights. Guantanmo Bay : Six Years Later. (4 pages)Center for Constitutional Rights. Composite statement: Detention in Afghanistan and

Guantanamo Bay: Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed. (115 pages)Center for Constitutional Rights. Ten Refugees Indefinitely Detained in Guantanamo.

(23 pages)Center for Constitutional Rights. Declaration of Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Esq., Lawyer for

Mohammed al Qahtani. 10 pages.Center for Constitutional Rights. Faces of Guantanamo. (10 pages.)Center for Constitutional Rights. Guantanamos Refugees. (26 pages)Center for Constitutional Rights. Report on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and

Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (55 pages) Human Rights WatchApproximately 653 pages

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch. 2006. By the Numbers: Findings of the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project. Approximately 31 pages.

Human Rights Watch. June 2008. Locked Up Alone Detention Conditions and Mental Health at Guantanamo. Approximately 57 pages.

Human Rights Watch. April 2008. Double Jeopardy: CIA Renditions to Jordan. Approximately 39 pages.

Human Rights Watch. September 2008. Ill-Fated Homecomings: A Tunisian Case Study of Guantanamo Repatriations. Approximately 48 pages.

Human Rights Watch. August 2002. PRESUMPTION OF GUILT: Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees. Approximately 99 pages.

Human Rights Watch. June 2004. The Road to Abu Ghraib. Approximately 37 pages.Human Rights Watch. March 2004. “Enduring Freedom”: Abuses by U.S. Forces in

Afghanistan. Approximaty 62 pages.Human Rights Watch. April 2005. Getting Away with Torture? Command

Responsibility for the U.S. Abuse of Detainees. Approximately 95 pages.Human Rights Watch. September 2005. Leadership Failure: Firsthand Accounts of

Torture of Iraqi Detainees by the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. Approximately 30 pages.

Human Rights Watch. July 2006. “No Blood, No Foul”: Soldiers’ Accounts of Detainee Abuse in Iraq. Approximately 55 pages.

Human Rights Watch. February 2007. Ghost Prisoner: Two Years in Secret CIA Detention. Approximately 50 pages.

Human Rights Watch. March 2007. The “Stamp of Guantanamo”: The Story of Seven Men Betrayed by Russia’s Diplomatic Assurances to the United States. Approximately 50 pages.

Physicians for Human Rights Approximately 318 pages

Physicians for Human Rights. 2005. Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces. Approximately 131 pages.

Physicians for Human Rights. June 2008. Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by US Personnel and Its Impact. Approximately 130 pages.

Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch. August 2007. Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality. Approximately 57 pages.

(2) Congressional HearingsApproximately 1,909 pages

Committee on Armed Services and Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services. United States Senate – One Hundred Ninth Congress. March 10; July 13, 14, 2005. Review of Department of Defense Detention and Interrogation Policy and Operations in the Global War on Terrorism. (268 pages)

Senate Armed Services Committee. One Hundred Eighth Congress. May 7, 11, 19; July 22; September 9, 2004. Review of Departemnt of Defense Detention and Interrogation Operatins. (1480 pages)

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Committee on the Judiciary. House of Representatives – One Hundred Tenth Congress. November 8, 2007. Torture and the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Detainees: The Effectiveness and Consequences of ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation. (72 pages)

Committee on Foreign Relations. One Hundred Tenth Congress. July 26, 2007. Extraordinary Rendition, Extraterritorial Detention and Treatment of Detainees: Restoring our Moral Credibility and Strengthening our Diplomatic Standing. (67 pages.)

Senate Armed Services Committee. 12 December 2008. Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. (19 pages)

(3) DoD, DoJ, DoA investigations and reportsApproximately 1,371 pages

Department of Defense. “Executive Summary: The Church Report.” (21 pages)Investigation of Intelligence Activities At Abu Ghraib. (177 pages)U.S. Department of Justice. Review of the FBI's Involvement in and Observations of

Detainee Interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Special Report. (438 pages.)

Department of Defense. November 8, 2004. Article 15-6 Investigation of CJOTF-AP

and 5th SF Group Detention Operations. (75 pages)Department of the Army. Detainees Operation Inspection. (321 pages.)Office of the Inspector Genderal of the Department of Defense. Review of DoD-Directed

Investigations of Detainee Abuse. (131 pages)Investigation into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Detention Facility. (29 pages)Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade. (53 pages.)Department of Defense. Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DoD

Detention Operations. (126 pages)

Total – Approximately 5,776 pages