Over the past few years, controversy has surrounded the alleged use of torture by U.S military and intelligence personnel, with the current administration arguing – basically – that in these times of ‘war’ (ie. the War on Terror, aka “the global struggle against extremism”), anything goes if it saves U.S. lives. The story has reared its head again with the publication of the ‘Yoo’ memo, a legal memorandum sent by the U.S. Justice Department to the Pentagon in 2003.
Browsing through this disgraceful attempt at using semantics to justify torture, I noted with interest that the memo also mines dictionary definitions to allow interrogation with mind-altering drugs – somewhat of a fifty-year flashback (pardon the pun) to the bad old days of Project MK-ULTRA. Watch the semantic acrobatics (please excuse the length, but it’s necessary to show how they justify it all):
Second, section 2340(2)(B) provides that prolonged mental harm, constituting torture, can be caused by “the administration or application or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.”…
…This subparagraph, however, does not preclude any and all use of drugs. Instead, it prohibits the use of drugs that “disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.” To be sure, one could argue that this phrase applies only to “other procedures,” not the application of mindaltering substances. We reject this interpretation because the terms of·section 2340(2) indicate that the qualif¥ing phrase applies to both “other procedures” and the “application of mindaltering substances.” The word “other” modifies “procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses.” As an adjective, “other” indicates that the· term or phrase it modifies is the remainder of several things. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1598 (1986) (defining “other” as “the one that remains of two or more”) Webster ‘s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 835 (1985) (defining “other” as “being the one (as of two or more) remaining or not included”). Or put another way, “other” signals that the words to which it attaches are of the same kind, type, or class as the more specific item previously listed. Moreover, where statutes couple words or phrases together, it “denotes an intention that they should be understood in the
same general sense.” Norman Singer, 2A Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 47: 16 (6th ed. 2000); see also Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 371 (1994) (”That several items in a list share an attribute counsels in favor of interpreting the other items as possessing that attribute as well.”). Thus, the pairing of mind-altering substances with procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses) or personality and the use of “other” to modify “procedures” shows that the use of such substances must also cause a profound disruption of the senses or personality.For drugs or procedures to rise to the level of “disrupt[ing] profoundly the senses or personality,” they must produce an extreme effect. And by requiring that they be “calculated” to produce such an effect, the statute requires that the defendant has consciously designed the acts to produce such an effect.= 28 U.S.c.§ 2340(2)(B). The word “disrupt” is defined as “to break asunder; to part forcibly; rend,” imbuing the verb with a connotation ofviolence. Webster’s New International Dictionary 753 (2d ed. 1935); see Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 656 (1986) (defining disrupt as “to break apart: Rupture” or “destroy the unity or wholeness of”); IV The Oxford English Dictionary 832 (1989) (defining disrupt as “[t]o break or burst asunder; to break in pieces; to separate forcibly”). Moreover, disruption of the senses or personality alone is insuffIcient to fall within the scope of this subsection; instead, that disruption must be profound. The word “profound” has a number of meanings, all of which convey a significant depth. Webster’s New International Dictionary 1977 (2d ed. 1935) defines profound as: “Of very great depth; extending far below the surface or top; unfathomable[;] … [c]oming from, reaching to, or situated at a depth or more than ordinary depth; not superficial; deepseated;
chiefly with reference to the body; as a profound sigh, wound, or paine;] … [c]haracterized by intensity, as of feeling or quality; deeply felt or realized; as, profound respect, fear, or melancholy; hence, encompassing; thoroughgoing; complete; as, profound sleep, silence, · or ignorance.” See Webster’s Third New Internati01iizl Dictionary 1812 (1986) (“having very · great depth: extending far below the surface … not superficial”). Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 1545 (2d ed. 1999) also defines profound as “originating in or penetrating to the depths of one’s being” or “pervasive or intense; thorough; complete” or “extending, situated, or originating far down, or far beneath the surface.” By requiring that the procedures and the drugs create a profound disruption, the statute requires more than that the acts “forcibly separate” or “rend” the senses or personality. Those acts must penetrate to the core of an individual’s ability to perceive the world around him, substantially interfering with his cognitive abilities, or fundamentally alter his personality.
Taking the same approach as the Justice Department, what constitutes a fundamental alteration of personality? Many would argue that all psychedelic experiences (and other ‘border encounters’ such as NDEs) fundamentally alter the personality. Quite hard to judge though, unless you’re the one undergoing the experience.
In any case, it looks like MK-ULTRA is back, baby! Or at least, legal (in reality, it probably never went away).
