Psychopolitics with Dr. Brian

By Dr. Brian Russell

There were some disingenuous hysterics going on in Washington over supposed “permanent psychological damage” to people whose “psychological damage,” if any, seems to me highly unlikely to be “permanent.” The first category of supposedly “permanently damaged” people includes terror suspects who were coercively interrogated at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere (a practice with which I’m comfortable, for reasons I’ve explained here previously). I believe that being interrogated by the C.I.A. is no fun, but I’ve heard absolutely zero evidence to support the contention that a single terror suspect has “permanent” psychological damage from it, and I’m skeptical. (By the way, while we’re on the subject of terrorism, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano owes an apology to America’s veterans. A recent report by her department on terror threats to the U.S. mainland focused inexplicably on American veterans being susceptible to “radicalization” instead of on Al Qaeda. Sure, there could be a wacko or two among just about any large group, but on the whole, our own veterans are pretty much the last group of people Americans should fear! As the grandson, son, and brother of veterans, I found the report insulting.) In addition to terror suspects, the A.C.L.U. believes that a former middle school student suffered permanent psychological damage when she was strip searched for drugs at her school years ago — at least that’s the argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, I believe that a strip search by the school nurse was no fun for the girl, and it does sound over the top when you consider that the drug in question was ibuprofen (that’s Advil), but arguing that it caused “permanent” psychological damage is likely to be equally over the top in my opinion (and I’ll also bet that the principal who ordered the search had a greater-than-average reason to suspect this particular girl of causing trouble). (April 19, 2009)

On the international front, I have to go on the record here and say that I’m concerned about the weakness that I see the political leaders (not the military) of the United States projecting to the world lately. I’m worried that it will embolden terrorists to strike us again, sooner rather than later. What do I mean? I mean making a federal case, literally, of pouring some water on a terrorist’s face to spare L.A. from a 9/11-style catastrophe. I mean locking up our own border guards for shooting a drug dealer who fled from them after entering this country illegally (and no, there’s nothing “racist” about that — I don’t want an 80-year-old Canadian woman sneaking in here either). I mean bringing the lone pirate who survived the rescue of Capain Phillips to the United States for a trial instead of hanging him from the bow of the U.S.S. Bainbridge on the spot. Think about the message we’re sending: if you attack the United States, the worst that will happen to you, if you get caught, is that you’ll be brought here, tried in one of our courts, and sentenced to a facility in which you won’t even have to worry about having water poured on your face, all of your religious and dietary preferences will be respected and accommodated, and any American who insults you in any way will end up in a cell of his/her own. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for respecting people’s religions — I’ve just seen no evidence that the Guantanamo detainees are any more devout followers of their religion than are most American followers of Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, yet I see us making more accommodations in Guantanamo than we make for our own citizens). I think those who advocate such soft tactics truly believe that the use of physical force to control behavior is no longer necessary in this world, but that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and particularly the nature of our enemies. Both internationally and domestically, there are people who will continue to demonstrate that they’re unwilling to live peaceably among us — in the international community and in your community — it’s a fact of human life. Such people take advantage of weakness; they back down only in the face of overwhelming strength. To them, a different message must be sent, immediately and forcefully, that their behavior will not be tolerated by this society — i.e. they’ll either live harmlessly with us or they’ll be rendered incapable of harming us, period. (And by the way, it’s folly to think that terrorists will treat an American hostage any differently based on how we treat our prisoners. If that were true, the worst that terrorists would’ve done to American hostages in recent years is “waterboarding,” yet I seem to recall some beheadings.)

(c/p: April 23, 2009)

Dr. Brian Russell is a licensed psychologist, attorney at law and familiar national television pundit on psychological, legal and cultural issues.

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Thread Through Obama’s Faith Speeches: The Golden Rule (usnews.com)
• Return Guantanamo detainees to China, Beijing demands (cbc.ca)
• Portugal to take 2 or 3 Gitmo prisoners (msnbc.msn.com)
• 15 Dead in Suspected U.S. Strike in Pakistan (abcnews.go.com)
• Some 9/11 hijackers would still get through (telegraph.co.uk)
• Obama: Putin has ‘one foot in the old ways’ (cbc.ca)
• Cheney: Obama Making Us Less Safe (alan.com)
• U.S. Says It Will Preserve Secret Jails for Terror Case (nytimes.com)
• Some 9/11 hijackers would still get through (telegraph.co.uk)

Popularity: unranked [?]