Rewriting torture: manufacturing a primer of abuse in US domestic prisons. (2024)

A college-level critical pedagogy project confirms that humanrights reporting can play a role in prison abolition as opposed toreform. By writing an altered version of the ICRC torture papers,students compared US prison torture in domestic and military sites,confirmed the application of a torture label to US prisons, decenteredthe classroom, and shifted foundational categories, including thosearound a capital crime. Creating counter-narratives partly based on theperspectives of the prisoners themselves extends the radical potentialof human rights work. When combined with critical pedagogy, human rightswriting can help create anti-carceral praxis.

**********

"'YOU f*ckED UP MY COUNT! YOU MESSED UP MY COUNT! SAYSORRY!'" Martin was a guest speaker for a prisons class Itaught at Pitzer College. The class compared domestic US prison torturewith forms of torture perpetrated in the war on terror.

Martin told the class about the time he was late for count in a LosAngeles area jail. The guard screamed at him, but Martin did notrespond. '"Oh, so you're a tough guy, huh? Get off yourrack."' The guard handcuffed him.

Martin thought maybe he was going to solitary confinement. Butinstead, the guard marched him out of the dorm into a holding cell withno surveillance. The correctional officers from his dorm surrounded him,and the guard hit Martin in the head with a flashlight.

"That's all I remember," he told us. More happened,but he does not know what, exactly:

 I was coming back to consciousness, and I was in the back of a police car. I couldn't move. I had a lot of problems with my side right here and my arm, and mv face was so dry and sticky from the blood that I really couldn't open my eye or anything. I remember looking out the window, and we were on the freeway, and it was dark. I thought, "Oh no. They're going to leave me for dead somewhere out here." And then I passed out again. When I came to, I was in a hospital. In LA County hospital, and the lady was like, "What really happened to you?" And then I was like, "They hit me." And she was like, "They said you fell." I got stitches. I don't know how many stitches I had exactly, but they cracked open like half of this right here [points to head]. Ever since then, I don't know. I don't know if it's been because of that, but I have these crazy headaches. And I have like a, like a real blur in my eyesight, right here.

Martin's narrative begins with the disciplinary control ofcounting bodies, an attempt at humiliation, and the vindictive desire ofa correctional officer. It concludes with how overlapping forms of powertranslate into abuse so severe they result in permanent physical damage.

Martin's guest lecture took place in my "Prison: Theory,Ethnography, and Action" class in 2009 in the wake of the torturescandal surrounding CIA black site prisons. (1) Combined with thecoverage of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, (2) the revelation of CIAtorture resulted in vocal condemnation from scholars and activistsindicating that similar forms of abuse were and had long been common inprisons within the domestic United States (see, most notably, Davis2005). In the United States, I knew people in prison with storiessimilar to Martin's: people who had been kept awake all night withbanging and bright lights, left in the snow naked, exposed to the summerheat, beaten by guards and other prisoners, denied appropriate medicaltreatment, and/or isolated for decades.

Creating counter-narratives based on the perspectives of people inprison extends the radical potential of human rights work. In whatfollows, I describe a critical pedagogy project that linked human rightsand prison discourses. By rewriting an International Committee of theRed Cross (ICRC) document focused on the war on terror, studentscompared US prison torture in domestic and military sites, confirmed theapplication of a torture label upon US prison practices, decentered theclassroom, and shifted foundational categories, including those aroundthe capital crime of murder. I argue below that combining human rightswork and critical pedagogy can create anticarceral praxis associatedwith abolition as opposed to reform.

In order to compare US prison abuses in domestic and war on terrorcontexts, I decided to have my class rewrite the ICRC report concerning14 detainees of high value. The ICRC report, known as "the torturepapers" (Greenberg & Dratel 2005), detailed the US practice ofwaterboarding and other forms of torture at CIA black site prisons. Thetorture papers described detainees suspended from the ceiling,restrained in handcuffs for months, blasted with heavy metal music,force-fed Ensure meal replacements, slammed against walls, and given thesensation of repeated drownings, among many other disturbing practices,while doctors looked on, calculated the number of breaths, and pushedbodies to the edge of death.

I asked my students to study the torture papers, to conductresearch, and to rewrite the report with examples like those shared byMartin from within the domestic United States. I had many questions as Ilaunched the project, particularly about the limitations of human rightsas a discourse for creating change and, more broadly, about what itmeans to create linkages between critical pedagogy, human rights, andanti-carceral work. I approached the project as an abolitionistinterested in critical pedagogy, as an anthropologist who utilizesethnography and narrative inquiry, and as a scholar-activist who writespartially through the lens of Black feminist theory [see for examplePatricia Hill Collins (2002), Kimberle Crenshaw (1991), Angela Davis(2005), and Beth Richie (2012)].

From an abolitionist perspective, the very existence of prisons isan abuse. Because I know many people in prison, I also understandfirsthand the benefits of reform work that addresses prison-basedsuffering, abuse, and torture--changes that people in prison areadvocating for in their own discourses. The tension between abolitionand reform frames this investigation of intersections between humanrights and critical pedagogy.

Toward a Pedagogy of Human Rights and Abolition

Examining the shared pedagogy of violence between domestic andmilitary sites is a theme explored by scholars such as Sharon Daniel(2005), Angela Davis (2005,2011,2016), Dylan Rodriguez (2007), and JuliaSudbury (2014). Angela Davis (2005,46) outlines the connections betweendomestic and war on terror abuses in several books and essays in whichshe describes a "flawed conception of democracy." In AbolitionDemocracy, Davis (2005,46) argues:

 Democratic rights and liberties are defined in relation to what is denied to people in prison.... The kind of democracy that can only invent and develop itself as the affirmative face of the horrors depicted in the Abu Ghraib photographs, the physical and mental agonies produced on a daily basis in prisons here and all over the world.

Davis's (2016) Freedom Is a Constant Struggle further connectsforms of oppression in places like Ferguson or Palestine both to eachother and within their associated communities of struggle. She focuseson the dangers of individualism and urges people to question thevalidity of violence for institutions that claim to monopolizeit--namely the police, prisons, and military (Davis 2016, 7).

My students' ability to complete a US version of the torturepapers confirmed the writings of Davis, Rodriguez, Sudbury, and otherscholars who analyze the connections between abuses in the domesticUnited States and those in prisons like Abu Ghraib or other detentioncenters within the CIA system. These connections are part of amultifaceted "cartography of synergies," as Sudbury (2004,20)terms it. Waterboarding, for example, dates back to the SpanishInquisition but was acquired as a US practice in the colonialPhilippines (McCoy 2009) and used at New York's Auburn CorrectionalFacility in the nineteenth century (Lewis 1965). The electrodes used inAbu Ghraib were similar to technology honed in the prisons of Arkansas,where the wires of modified telephones were attached to the big toes andgenitals of incarcerated people until the 1970s (Garvey 1999). Taserscurrently used in prisons, which now house disproportionate numbers ofmentally ill persons, (3) can be seen as a tragic form of electroshocktherapy (Rhodes 2004).

Abolition is the transformational ideology shared by the scholarswho have sought links between domestic and international prison torture.Movements toward abolition operate at global and local scales and haveharnessed human rights reports for international coalition buildingaround anti-carceral strategies. In a critical study of human rights,Barbara Schulman (2004) describes how feminism, antiracism,antimilitarism, anti-imperialism, and queer liberation can be tied to aradicalized global human rights movement. She argues that "therelatively non-threatening language of human rights can function as theopening wedge in conversation with those who may be resistant to morepointed critiques" (Schulman 2004, 103). Schulman recognizes thathuman rights may be coopted into discourses that further inequalitybetween Global North and Global South, but she notes that severalcritical human rights trajectories counter this drift--including a focuson global women's issues and racial justice, and depicting theUnited States as a human rights violator rather than defender. BertaEsperanza Hernandez-Truyol (2002, 365) also sees the potential forglobalizing human rights by focusing on transnational capitalism and itseffects on individuals--in other words, by giving human rights "ahuman face."

Scholarly treatments of incarceration that include a human rightsperspective have been the focus of several inquiries, most notably byLevy and Waldman (2014), Price (2015), and Rhodes (2004, 2009). Theseaccounts demonstrate how ethnographic practice can intersect with Blackfeminist theorists' urgings to include the voices of people inprison and their families (Richie 2012). Lorna Rhodes (2009, 193), forexample, treats solitary confinement as a part of a "trajectory ofexception," referencing analogues to homeland security and to warimagery and militarism. Rhodes (2009, 194) sees the supermax prison"as a social environment paradoxically defined by the antisocialand nonrelational" and requiring "ongoing, though unstable andgenerally toxic, social relations." For Joshua Price (2015), prisonis equivalent to social death. Price analyzes tactics of humiliation,such as strip searches and sexual abuses, as well as the attendant joyof witnessing suffering. Humiliation, he says, is "intrinsic to themodern penitentiary" (Price 2015, 41). Levy and Waldman's(2014) rich collection of essays from inside women's prisonsprovides deeply personal experiences of the interlinkages betweenphysical, sexual, and mental abuse and the lack of health care andisolation which exacerbates this ill-treatment.

Human rights discourses have a long history within disciplines likeanthropology (Goodale 2009). Butting up against cultural relativism,universalist human rights discourses have sometimes conflicted withethnographic particulars. Anthropologists have been key players ininvestigating the effects of human rights tribunals and the subjectiveexperiences of those involved. Richard Ashby Wilson (2005, 78), forexample, argues for a "social life of rights," which studies"the social forms that coalesce in and around formal rightspractices and formulations, and which are usually hidden in the penumbraof the official political process." Human rights approaches focuson creating remedies for specific violations and thus have beencritiqued for limiting the possibilities of a more radicaltransformation. Samuel Moyn (2012, 124) asserts that "the powerfulnorms of human rights are best understood for having displaced if notruled out alternative visions of and approaches to local and globaljustice." This mirrors debates within prison activism and advocacysurrounding what kind of change is appropriate, desirable, or evenpossible. Annelise Riles (2006) mounts a criticism ofanthropology's inheritance of a positivist agenda--one thatmeasures specific acts against specific laws. She asserts that bothanthropology and human rights function within the iron cage ofinstrumentalism--that human rights' legalist nature has wound itsway into anthropology as a discipline. Riles proceeds to advocate for amore nuanced ethnographic method to counter this inadequacy.

Following Riles, the method for this project relies on long-termengagement with incarcerated individuals as well as textual analyses ofdocuments. As a scholar-activist, I derive my analysis of prison-basedhuman rights abuses from 20 years of participatory ethnographic workwith people in prison and their families. My ethnographic work alsodovetails with my own practice of critical pedagogy, which investigatespunitive strategies. In a Freirean sense, the connection betweeneducation and critical theory is part of the tension between culturalrelativism and universalist human rights concepts, evidenced both in thecontent of human rights reports and in first-person accounts andinterpretations.

The remainder of this article details the process and product of acritical pedagogy and human rights project that compares domestic andinternational US prison torture. After introducing the ICRC as a humanrights organization, I review my class 'process of altering theICRC torture papers. I then describe a transformational guest lecturethat shifted students' categorization of capital crimes. I concludethat, when combined with critical pedagogy, human rights writing can bea form of anti-carceral praxis.

Independent, Neutral, and Secret

The work of the ICRC predates the 1949 Geneva Conventions andadditional provisions of international humanitarian law. (4) Based inGeneva, Switzerland, the ICRC describes itself as an "independent,neutral organization ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance forvictims of war and armed violence. It takes action in response toemergencies and at the same time promotes respect for internationalhumanitarian law and its implementation in national law." -1 ICRCwork focuses on violations of conventions rather than other legalprocesses. Conventions are agreements; in the case of the ICRC, actionis not pursued in tribunals or courtrooms but in direct dialogue withgovernments to focus on bringing about immediate remedy.

Political scientist David Forsythe (2005) considers the ICRC to bea "unique humanitarian protagonist." He notes severalparadoxes, including the ICRC's approach to achievingcollective-focused liberal goals via individual- focused conservativemeans. In each of its signature categories--independence, neutrality,and secrecy--the ICRC has made moral compromises due to its requirementof government consent, its unwillingness to engage in shame and blametactics despite its involvement in public humanitarian discourse, andits steadfast refusal to make documents available to the public. Theleaking of the torture papers is the most visible example of this. Here,the ICRC's secrecy crossed the line into moral failure.

An unknown person, presumably from within the organization, leakedthe torture papers regarding the 14 detainees of high value to NewYork-based journalist Mark Danner in 2009. Danner published "TieRed Cross Torture Report: What It Means" in Hoe New York Review ofBooks on April 20,2009, thus issuing a blanket condemnation of UStorture practices. As Danner said in the opening paragraphs to hisarticle: "When it comes to torture, it is not what we did but whatwe are doing. It is not what happened but what is happening and whatwill happen" (Danner 2009).

The document publicized admonishments, reminders, and concerns thatpoint out specific ways that the United States violated internationalhuman rights conventions concerning the ill-treatment and torture ofprisoners. As the document was leaked to the press, the resultingpublicity unleashed widespread outrage regarding US conduct, which mighthave seemed to help the ICRC's cause. But the leak also underminedthe ICRC's ability to continue its work as its members believed itshould be done: in secret, like the prison itself.

The North American division of the ICRC is concerned with thetreatment of detainees in the context of the war on terror, and ICRCmembers have documented abuses at US prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, andGuantanamo Bay, Cuba. Provisions of Common Article 3 to the 1949 GenevaConventions stipulate that persons "shall in all circ*mstances betreated humanely," and that "cruel treatment and torture"and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating anddegrading treatment" are prohibited at any time and in any place(Pictet et al. 1949).

Rewriting Torture: Critical Pedagogy in Action

As a project of critical pedagogy, the process of researching andrewriting the ICRC torture papers decentered our classroom, prioritizedpeer learning, and shifted expertise from academics to incarcerated orformerly incarcerated individuals. In the process, the report providedcritical engagement with key social justice issues surrounding theprison system. Our work mirrored the kind of decentralization that oftenaccompanies anti-carceral work. In the outcome, the altered reportturned out to be a rigorous, well-documented primer of ill treatment,structural problems, and troubling legal and extralegal practices withinUS prisons.

Interrogation and incarceration are two interlinked processes, andI wanted my class to probe the differences and similarities between thetreatment of incarcerated individuals we called detainees and of thosewe called inmates. Human rights violations in US prisons are welldocumented, yet the closed characteristics of penal settings continue toallow the flourishing of dangerous practices. Problematic legal andextralegal practices in the United States have included the shackling ofwomen in labor (Sussman 2008), long-term solitary confinement (Rhodes2004), coerced sterilization of women (Stern 2005), deaths linked to theuse of conductive electronic devices (Chan & Ross 2007), improperuse of restraining beds and chairs (Frank & OHalloran 2000), thesentencing of juveniles to life without the possibility of parole(Nellis 2010), and many other unjust and harmful practices. The UnitedStates has been slow to modify its penal practices to make the prisonsystem seem more humane.

The original ICRC's torture papers begin as follows:

 The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has consistently expressed its grave concern over the humanitarian consequences and legal implications of the practice by the United States (US) authorities of holding persons in undisclosed detention in the context of the fight against terrorism. In particular, the ICRC has underscored the risk of ill-treatment, the lack of contact with the outside world as a result of being held incommunicado, the lack of a legal framework, and the direct effects of such treatment and conditions on the persons held in undisclosed detention and on their families.

These first sentences capture the report's primary concernwith incommunicado detention--being held outside of a legal framework.To make our comparative project successful, my students first had torecognize the differences as well as the similarities in the context ofdomestic incarceration. Whether seeking information, compliance, or somecombination thereof, both systems use tactics of humiliation andcontrol, creating an ever-shifting line between legal and extralegalpractices that human rights reporting attempts to render in black andwhite.

Tie beginning of the repurposed report written by my students readsas follows:

 The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has consistently expressed its grave concern over the humanitarian consequences and legal implications of detention practices by the United States (US) authorities in the context of the fight against crime. In particular, the ICRC has underscored the risk of ill-treatment, the lack of contact with the outside world, the problems with current legal frameworks, and the direct effects of treatment and conditions on the persons held in detention and on their families.

After shifting the focus to conventional incarceration in US jailsand prisons, our first task was deciding on the table of contents.Through a collaborative, discursive process, we rewrote the ICRC tableof contents as demonstrated in Table 1.1 trained students in theWiki-function of our class website, where I had placed several initialcategories: Title Page, Table of Contents, Who Is Doing What, Resources(Citations), Legal Cases/Citations, Suggestions, Report Distribution,and Editing Process. I prompted the students to suggest ideas forsection headings and to weigh in on ideas contributed by others. I alsoasked students to sign up for categories either singly or in teams inorder to begin research on their topics. In order to construct thereport, I asked students to replace the war on terror prison abuses withdocumented examples from the domestic United States, borrowing thelanguage, framework, style, and many categories from the original ICRCdocument (see Table 1).

Several categories changed, beginning with the deletion ofincommunicado detention. Students replaced suffocation by water,prolonged stress standing, confinement in a box, and forced shaving withuse of non-lethal weapons, exposure to disease, overcrowding, and sexualviolence, respectively. Key differences pointed us to similarities intactics of humiliation and control.

During the course of the semester, three guest speakers, whom Iknew from my fieldwork, became parts of the project. Our first guestspeaker was Joseph, a Guatemalan man who had encountered guardretribution for attempting to represent himself while fighting his legalcase. Joseph had attempted suicide in a Los Angeles County Jail cell,was segregated from the remainder of the population, and wassubsequently placed on suicide watch. His vivid descriptions ofisolation shattered notions of protection for vulnerable individuals.Martin was our second speaker. He was an African American man from LosAngeles. In addition to beatings, Martin also described an incident inwhich guards stripped off and stomped on the prisoners' bed sheetsin order to induce fear of being contaminated with staph infection (orperhaps actually attempting to infect the inmates with staph). Our thirdguest speaker was Duke, a Caucasian man who described guard abuses andinmate violence in a Central California prison. He discussed the murderof a rapist at the hands of another inmate while he served time. Below,I will focus on that murder in order to foreground a discussion ofcontextualization and decontextualization in human rights reporting.

Examples for the report came from these and other sources,including my own ethnographic research, one student's personalconnections, students' experiences during the requiredcommunity-based placements, court cases, news media, policy reports,peer-reviewed scholarship, prison-related websites and writing, and thereports of groups such as Human Rights Watch and the ACLU. The finalreport was 74 pages, including references, and it confirmed that prisontorture is a widespread practice on US soil.

The accounts in the altered report were based on documentedoccurrences and first-person narratives of prison life in the UnitedStates from 2000 to 2009. Students covered institutional forms ofviolence as well as those resulting from neglect, exceptionalcirc*mstances as well as practices considered routine. I directed mystudents to stay as close as possible to the original language andstyle, changing only what was necessary given these differences.

Many original ICRC categories--such as solitary confinement,beating and kicking, and prolonged nudity--mapped perfectly ontodomestic prison contexts. We needed to find replacements for severalother categories, and I include these in a Wild list below with mynotations:

1.3.1. Suffocation by Water (To my knowledge, waterboarding has notbeen used in domestic US prisons.)

1.3.2. Prolonged Stress Standing (Tine only mention I have heard ofthis practice is anecdotal. Is there anything in the readings or in yourresearch that supports this inclusion? I once heard of a Jesus Christcell in the federal prison where someone was "suspended"overnight. I am not sure of the story's legitimacy Any thoughts?)

1.3.3. Beatings by Use of a Collar (Although our reading did referto people being flung against a wall, there was no apparatus involved.Perhaps hiding evidence of injury? Strategic beatings to mask visibleinjury?)

1.3.5. Confinement in a Box (There is certainly confinement in"the box" or "the hole," but this confinement isvery different. Solitary is already covered above.)

1.3.11. Forced shaving (I am unsure about this practice.)

This prompt for suggestions elicited 20 responses. Studentssuggested potential topics including deaths in custody, exposure todisease, nontreatment of illness/injury, rape/sexual violence, use ofdogs, delousing, injuring without leaving marks, and fire hosewashdowns. Student excerpts from the online discussion evinced a largelyinquisitive stance and created the basis of what would later become ourformal table of contents:

The idea of in jury without leaving a mark: 1 learned that onetechnique the CIA interrogators would use would be to slap thedetainee's stomach. The goal of the hard open-handed slap was tocause pain but not cause internal injury. (Julia W.)

I'm not sure if this qualifies as "torture: per se, butwhat about certain acts of discrimination, like denial of religiouspractice (prayer mats, turbans, etc.); also, more specifically aboutmentally disabled people in prison--denial of rights to treatment and/orexposure to dangerous and potentially fatal triggers/situations/ people.(Laura S.)

And to further expand on the "nontreatment ofillness/injury," this topic could be separated into: 1) mentallydisabled/injured people, and 2) drug addicts (specifically,heroin/methadone) being denied necessary medication or treatment andthen being punished for reactions (physical, verbal) that are out of theprisoners' control. (Laura G.)

Perhaps we can do something related to the poor treatment ofmentally ill prisoners, electrocution (I think I've read aboutelectrocution with cattle prods), [and] burning prisoners with toxicchemicals. Maybe someone could [examine] the current overcrowding issuein US prisons? (Mario B.)

I agree that overcrowding definitely needs to be included. It istied to so many other issues that we will be covering, i.e., [the] lackof appropriate medical care and mental health care. (April W.)

Perhaps tasers and chemicals (pepper spray) should be groupedtogether in the same section. (Abraham K.)

For rape/sexual violence, I think that the extent to which prisonguards and officials overlook sexual violence and sexual"slavery" is certainly significant. And of course, I thinkit's easy to make the argument that sex between inmates and guardsis inherently coerced, even if it isn't physically forced. 1 alsothink it could be interesting to link inmate-inmate violence (not justsexual) back to violent treatment of inmates by guards--it perpetuates aculture of violence, brutality, and degradation. (Lauren B.)

The discussion continued in class as we hashed out the details of amore holistic approach to prison experiences, verified differentpractices and their prevalence, and separated out different categories.

Our repurposing of the ICRC template made the point about torturein US domestic prisons as forcefully as the original report had donewith regard to the CIA abuses. Instead of detournement, which subvertsthe message of a well-known image through mimicry, the class projectused imitation to extend the power of the original ICRC work. (6) Thegoal was neither simply to classify what did or did not qualify astorture nor to compare what specific behaviors might seem justifiablewithin what contexts. By comparing ill-treatment in the US prison systemto abuses in the CIA detention program, students uncovered a sharedpedagogy of violence, humiliation, and dehumanization for the purposesof maintaining control over and seeking information from incarceratedpersons.

Solitary Confinement

I now turn to one specific example from the report: solitaryconfinement. In order to unpack this topic, students researched thedifference between disciplinary and administrative segregation, commonconditions in solitary confinement, the impact of solitary confinementon mental health, and the interconnections between supermax prisons andpractices in the two "Bays"-- Guantanamo and Pelican. Wediscussed force-feeding via nasogastric tubes and Ensure, whichdisrupted inmates' abilities to engage in hunger strikes. Studentseducated themselves about statistics regarding solitary confinement,which show that the United States is alone among developed countries inits use of long-term solitary confinement on a regular basis; today,25,000 Americans are living in long-term solitary confinement in theUnited States, and 50,000-80,000 Americans are kept in restrictivesegregation units, many of whom are in isolation. (7)

We also gathered firsthand data, beginning with the story of TedW., a mentally ill inmate in a New York State Prison. Ted's storywas communicated to me in conversation with a colleague working onbehalf of mentally ill inmates in upstate New York, and his first-personnarrative was included in a pamphlet associated with a mental healthadvocacy project. Ted wrote of being transferred to a Special HousingUnit (SHU) for an eight-month period at the beginning of hisincarceration. For the first two weeks, he reported that he was held ina mental health observation room, where he was kept in solitaryconfinement for 24 hours per day. He had no recreation time and waspermitted neither letters nor phone calls. During this same period, hewas deprived of water for 52 hours. His toilet was not functioning, andhe attempted to use a plastic bag to cover the stench. He was forced topound on the glass to communicate his need for water to correctionalofficers, who eventually gave him a bag of ice. When family membersdiscovered his situation and were able to advocate on his behalf, theinstitution indicated that he had slipped through the cracks.

In order to understand Ted's account, we needed to understandthe broader context of solitary confinement. The students analyzed theextreme loss of privileges and the regime of isolation that deprivespeople of basic human needs for sociality, natural light and air, andfree bodily movement. They learned that inmates subjected to long-termsolitary confinement include persons whom the prison administrationdeems a serious risk to other inmates, who have violated informal orformal codes of conduct vis-a-vis the guards, and/or who have beenattacked and need to be separated for their own protection. Becausem*ntally ill individuals have more difficulty abiding by the rules ofinstitutions, people like Ted are disproportionately placed in SpecialHousing Units (SHUs).

Martin, the guest speaker whose narrative begins this paper, gavethe following description of solitary confinement at the CaliforniaInstitution for Men in Chino:

 The lockups, it was like we had a cage. We had one cage door, like a barred door. That was to open your slot so they can give you your food. But then on top of that door, you had another door. So it was like you was really locked in. You was locked in at least two different doors. And it was pitch black. You didn't really know if it was day or if it was night. The only way you knew the time was when they would bring you your breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Or when you hear over the loud intercom that it's count time. That's how you start to learn to tell the time in there.

Martin's descriptions of solitary confinement contextualized abroader narrative about prison life. We were then able to integrate hisstory into findings regarding how practices of social isolation, sensorydeprivation, constant exposure to light or darkness, and limitedexercise contribute to the psychological and physical deterioration ofpeople in prison.

Another example of this deterioration came from a student in ourclass whose ex-husband had been a former prisoner. She solicited hisnarrative about a young man who died in solitary confinement in 2005 atthe Taft Correctional Institution, a privately run federal prison inCalifornia. The young man had sustained a traumatic head injury prior tohis incarceration that had left him permanently brain damaged. Heexhibited a childlike demeanor. Once incarcerated, he was placed in thegeneral population where fellow prisoners reminded him when to eat, whento shower, and so forth. A group of individuals protected him in theprison yard. He was eventually placed in solitary confinement, where hegrew confused and disoriented. Others in solitary attempted to calm himfrom their own cells and called, without success, for guards tointervene as he began to ram his head repeatedly against the cell door.He died of a broken neck.

Solitary confinement clearly links US domestic and war on terrordetention practices. Just as scholars like Lorna Rhodes (2004) detailthe harms of domestic solitary confinement, the Senate IntelligenceCommittee found that detainees in "the CIA's enhancedinterrogation techniques and extended isolation exhibited psychologicaland behavioral issues, including hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia, andattempts at self-harm and self-mutilation. Multiple psychologistsidentified the lack of human contact experienced by detainees as a causeof psychiatric problems" (Feinstein 2014). The Senate IntelligenceCommittee's executive summary shows conditions of detention at CIAblack site prisons to be far worse than had been revealed and to beultimately ineffective at information gathering (Feinstein 2014).

In response to these experiences, the class wrote a series ofrecommendations urging US authorities to "insure that all personsdetained in the context of the fight against crime are held inconformity with the rules and principles of national and internationallaw." The class made recommendations to eliminate abusiveconditions, to treat people humanely, to allow communication with familymembers, to develop plans of oversight, to investigate allegations ofill-treatment, and to punish the perpetrators as a form of prevention.

These recommendations--repurposed from a close reading of theoriginal ICRC report regarding detainee treatment--place human rightsreporting and its associated changes squarely within the camp of reformrather than abolition. Developing oversight, making sure that prisonsoperate by the letter of the law, and relying on punishment fail totackle the root causes of incarceration and to demonstrate thelimitations of human rights as a discourse for change.

The pedagogy surrounding the project, however, was less static.Ultimately, the pedagogical process--rather than the report'soutcome--was what held potential for transformation. This wasparticularly evident in the erasure of conventional categories thatoccurred in one guest speaker's narrative, detailed in the sectionbelow.

What Murder?

The process of distilling information and narratives into a formalhuman rights document forced my class to weigh how relativism and humanrights contradict and support one another. This again engaged withRiles's (2006) push for a circling back of method in humanrights--related social science.

The primary narrative I spend time with in this section belongs toDuke, one of the guest speakers who discussed his experiences behindbars. The students' reactions to Duke's narrative ultimatelysupport the claim that critical pedagogy, ethnography, and human rightstogether can become a form of praxis by creating counter-narratives thatstem from first-person accounting.

Duke had served time in a California State Prison for drug dealing.He had many tattoos that skirted the line between racism and whiteethnic identity, such as images of clovers or Irish runes. He wasneither a full-blown member of the Aryan Brotherhood nor a NaziLowrider, the two White prison gangs that rule California prisons. Hesaid he was just a regular "wood"--a White guy or"peckerwood" with loose ideological affiliation to thesepowerful prison gangs, and he had endured significant ill-treatmentwhile behind bars at the hands of both guards and other inmates.

In his guest lecture, Duke discussed a prison riot during which theguards pepper-sprayed fighting inmates with giant plastic water gunsthat children use for play. The guards then stripped the inmates down totheir underwear, hogtied them, and forced them to lie facedown on theasphalt in the middle of summer. Duke raised his shirt to show thepermanent burn marks that now scar his chest. On another occasion, hewas shot with dowel guns: "skip shot," as he called it. Whenthe wooden bullets are aimed at the ground, they shatter and fly up,embedding themselves in the skin of inmates. His legs were covered withmore scars to prove his narrative. Duke's use of his body as aforensic prop was convincing. Each of his examples showed how guardswere using legal practices in illegal ways. Children's water toysare not approved dispensers for pepper spray, although pepper spray isapproved to quell inmate violence. Restraining inmates is legal in orderto prevent further violence; however, burning people in prison on hotconcrete without shirts strains that legality. Wooden dowels areapproved for use but not in the manner that Duke described. In additionto these incidents, Duke had been beaten with a lock in a sock as wellas cut with a bent can lid, which left a deep scar across his chin.

After detailing these incidents, Duke told of his "worstexperience": a time when he had been housed in solitary confinementwith an African American man.

 I did three stints in the hole for fighting. You have two bunks. Usually they put White with White, Mexican with Mexican, Black with Black. They tried to put a Black with me. If anybody found out on the yard that I let a Black bunk with me, I would be probably killed. So he came in, we started fighting, started going off. And a Black cop came in, handcuffed me, and let the Black guy beat me.

The two instantly started fighting, as was the expectation inCalifornia prisons. Few people can share a cell with a member of anotherrace in California, where a virulent race-based politics is constant.Guards, like the one in Duke's case, often play into prison racialpolitics, favoring one race over another.

In the midst of these dialogues, Duke narrated a murder once againset within the context of guard corruption. One guard had let severalindividuals know that there was a rapist in their "car." Carsare the most intimate prison spaces, metaphorical vehicles in whichclosely aligned people "ride" in the yard. Cars blendgeography and race: it might be all the peckerwoods (White people) orSurenos (gang members with a Southern California affiliation) from acertain city or part of California. (8) The "key holder" tothis specific car--the person who lets people in or out of thecar--decided a purge was in order. The next time they were in the yard,one inmate held the rapist down while another stabbed him to death.

In the following class period after Duke's lecture, Idebriefed with my class regarding Duke's narrative--including themoral ambiguity of the murder Duke had described. Several studentsseemed confused. "What murder?" one of them asked.

"What murder" proved to be a telling question. It broughtback to center the conflicts between human rights and culturalrelativism. Had we managed to build a context for violence so powerfulthat this capital crime was considered "just a part of prisonlife," or worse, "a just part of prison life?" How hadmurder become unrecognizable? The "what murder" questionerased more than conventional definitions of crime. It flipped thestandards of relativism to the opposite of where they usually sat. Icontinually encouraged a critical relativism in my anthropology ofprisons classes; but I had noticed that some guest speaker accounts--inparticular, the first-person narratives of prison life--had an uncannypower to erase the students' normally critical stances.

Throughout the semester, I attempted to help the studentsunderstand how violence acts as a moral framework for people in prisonas well as for guards. Every guest speaker, including Duke, describedintense racial politics and how killing can easily be directed atmembers of either another or one's own race. In Duke's case, aguard had championed the killing. We had learned through other accountsthat guards may view such cleansing as beneficial. Even when suchpractices are not lethal, guards and inmates alike consider ridding theyard of sex offenders and other vilified individuals, such as those whocommit crimes against women and children, as beneficial. From at leasttwo perspectives, the killing narrated by Duke was in line with theoverlapping moralities that prison guards and inmates shared. Itrepresented an extralegal form of justice in which both guards andincarcerated persons participated. But far from being just a corruptguard bringing in drugs, cigarettes, or cell phones, Duke's guardhad been the impetus behind the death of a human being.

My students' initial inability to recognize that killing asmurder draws attention to the importance of removing singular incidentsfrom the context that produces them. The removal of context is part ofthe wisdom of ICRC methods. Like many other human rights organizations,the ICRC focuses less on holistic accounting and more on isolated,identifiable incidents of brutality measured against specificconventions. To single out incidents--as to single out a murder--becomespart of the ability to recognize them as such. The murder that occurredin the midst of the mess that is prison made it temporarilyindistinguishable from the rioting, the violence, the sliced face, orthe beaten-in head. Duke's description of the killing was part ofthe disorder and routine of the brutal daily context in which he lived.

Elements of Duke's story gained clarity in their distilledform, which appeared in our report in three different places:

1. Mr. Duke W. sustained serious burns on the chest after beingleft without a shirt or pants, hogtied and pepper sprayed, on concreteexceeding 120 Fahrenheit after a riot.

2. Mr. Duke W. displayed scars on his legs from a frequent practiceat a California state prison of guards' aiming wooden dowel bulletsat the ground instead of directly at inmates' bodies as is approvedprocedure. If shot at concrete, wooden dowels shatter and the shardsembed themselves into the skin of nearby inmates.

3. In a California facility, several inmates stabbed to death aninmate who had been convicted of a rape, a charge that usually relegatesa person to protective custody. A correctional officer had informedinmates as to the presence of a rapist in their group.

A mix of contexualization and decontextualization is associatedwith justice work and human rights reporting as well as with policingand prosecution. Within social science, contextualization rendersillegal acts more rational or at least more understandable givenhistories of racism, ongoing cycles of poverty, unjust laws, andfailures to prioritize people's well-being and education in favorof locking them in cages. Decontextualization--sanitized, matter-of-factreporting--is potentially the positivism Riles (2006) criticizes as wellas a method that can easily become more rhetorical than empirical.

In Duke's case, the students knew that it would have beenhighly problematic for inmates to refuse to participate in this violentact without being subject to violence themselves. If superiors--theguard and the key holder--ordered them to do this, their own culpabilitywas limited. The murder disappeared from view both because superiors hadcompromised the element of choice, and because the class was alreadysteeped in the brutal context of prison. Only by describing the actseparately--and later discussing it in depth--could the students seethrough the coercive prison context. Only through decontextualizationdid the murder come back into view; the horror of the act reemerged as acapital crime, as murder--as something that should stick out and benoticed.

This example provided another parallel between war on terror anddomestic abuses: the complexity of accountability. Guards, agents,military, or medical personnel involved in war on terror abuses havesimilarly compromised agency because either their acts are dictated bysuperiors or they are condoned by a culture of dehumanization created bygovernmental policy and leadership. The ICRC's method is not tocondemn individuals--as courts of law are wont to do--but to condemngovernments. The ICRC holds responsible those highest in power: theparties that actually create the conditions in prisons and the policiesof torture rather than those who directly carry out the relateddeplorable acts. In Duke's case, the ICRC's focus would nothave been on the individual guard, the key holder, or the inmates whocarried out the stabbing. Rather, the act would have been the vehiclethrough which the ICRC could condemn the culture of degrading treatmentas well as the legal apparatuses that allowed for or encouraged suchviolence to take place in the United States.

In some ways, condemning a culture of degrading treatment alignsICRC outcomes with anti-carceral activism. Abolitionist activist groupsorganize around racist policies that prioritize flawed security agendasover the lives of people. They attempt to tackle root-cause issueswithout swelling the existing system of incarceration. Despite the focuson political responsibility, ICRC and most other human rightsorganizations fail to take into account the broader contexts ofcolonialism, militarism, racism, gender discrimination, andneoliberalism. Tied to government change, human rights work thus fitsmore easily into reformist politics, whereas the moral obligation toconfront global justice remains a disconnected goal.

Moving between contextualization and decontextualization isuncommon in the anthropological circles with which I am most familiar.Doing so demonstrates the power that can accompany a more sanitizedpresentation. A sanitized presentation does the opposite of what the lawdoes: it condemns policies and the governments that make them ratherthan the individual actors. Although we might critique police or lawenforcement documents for their style of decontextualized reporting, wecan praise the ICRC for it because it holds the correct bodiesaccountable. As mentioned above following David Forsythe (2005), theICRC is able to achieve liberal goals with conservative means.

Conclusion

The many physical tortures found in US penitentiaries today belieMichel Foucault's (1977) assertion that the locus of punishment hasmoved from the body to the mind. Current iterations of torture are basedon connections between these two loci. In the domestic United States,the primary concern is less about information than it is about bothwarehousing what Ruth Gilmore (2007) calls a surplus population andkeeping that population in compliance, inside the prison and outside ofit. Dylan Rodriguez (2007) reminds us that there can be no such thing asa compliant prisoner. To survive behind bars necessitates the oppositeof compliance. Each sentence begins anew the game of posturing, pursuit,hedging, affiliation, and abuse that passes for justice in the UnitedStates.

I discussed this project with the ICRC in spring 2010.1 sent themour alternative report via email and described the project as aproduction of a class at Pitzer College. I explained that the documentwas based on their leaked report concerning 14 detainees of high value,and that our document had borrowed a great deal of language as well asthe framework and many categories from the original report. I furthertold them that all of the information contained was based on documentedoccurrences and first-person narratives of prison life in the UnitedStates.

After meeting internally about the document, the ICRC's NorthAmerican division scheduled a phone conversation with me. ICRCrepresentative Mark Silverman indicated that the report "came at agood time." With the then-impending closure of Guantanamo Bay, somewar on terror detainees would be transferred stateside--potentiallyturning ICRC's gaze to prisons within the domestic United Statesfor the first time. They were pleased with the work and even proposeddoing a fictitious governmental debrief at my college were we to attemptsuch a project again. Silverman indicated that one of ICRC'scorollary activities is to educate. Each year, the organization conductslaw school workshops on the Geneva Conventions. As it turns out, they,too, are interested in pedagogy.

My class ended our report by saying:

 This report was intended as an accounting of some of the abuses taking place on US domestic territory. Whether these comprise torture is only part of the point. We assert, just as the ICRC might, that our system needs remedy. We seek that remedy with you, the reader.

Engaging in human rights reporting allowed us to write criticallyabout prison experiences, to shift categories and notions of expertise,and to add to a literature that, until recently, has been lacking in anethnographic foundation (Wacquant 2002). This work follows the urging ofBlack feminist scholars such as Beth Richie (2012), who insists that thevoices of people directly affected by an issue be prioritized andengaged, and that people in prison and their families act as the leadersand beneficiaries of change movements--the remedy to which our classreferred. A crucial point of critical pedagogy maintains that studentwork can engage with that remedy. Critical pedagogy teaches us to lookbeyond texts and images, to redefine the locus of human rights, and toblend relativism with the condemnation of power abuses against subjectedpeople.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the students in my Fall 2009 "Prison:Theory, Ethnography, and Action" class at Pitzer College, MarkSilverman of the International Committee of the Red Cross, two anonymousreviewers, and Sung Ohm for commenting on an earlier version of thispaper.

NOTES

(1.) According to the Open Society Foundations, black site prisonsare part of the CIAs Extraordinary Rendition and Detention Program andallow the United States to circumvent prohibitions for practices thatwould be illegal on US soil. Seehttps://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/projects/globalizing-torture formore information.

(2.) In 2004, after several reports were published, 60 Minutes dida segment on the abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison, showingphotographs of detainees in various states of torture andhumiliation--wearing hoods with electrodes attached, leashed andcollared, smeared with feces, or forced to form a naked humanpyramid--often accompanied by US soldiers posing, smiling, and makingsupportive gestures. The scandal reverberated throughout the UnitedStates as well as the international community.

(3.) For more information about mentally ill persons in prisons andjails, see the National Institute of Corrections website(https://nicic.gov/mentalillness) and the National Alliance for MentalIllness (https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Public-Policy/Jailing-People-with-Mental-Illness).

(4.) During the Great War in 1915, ICRC representatives demandedaccess to thousands of prisoners of war. By 1949, the Geneva Conventionscarried provisions that guaranteed the ICRC access to prisoners of warin both international and non-international conflicts as well as inviolent conflicts existing outside a state of war. Today, ICRCrepresentatives visit over 500,000 detainees annually in more than 70countries.

(5.) Please see the ICRC's website at https://www.icrc.org.

(6.) Detournement is a mid-century French tactic of subvertingmedia and other messages associated with capitalism. It acted as aprecursor to culture jamming in the United States and is associated withthe Situationist International (McDonough 2007).

(7.) For statistics related to solitary confinement, please see theSolitary Watch website at http://solitarywatch.com/facts/faq/.

(8.) Prison gangs hold a great deal of power in California prisonsand are both a reason for and a reaction to California's intenseracial segregation both inside prison and on the street.

REFERENCES

Chan, Ted and Darrell L. Ross (eds.) 2007 Sudden Deaths in Custody.Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

Collins, Patricia Hill 2002 Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.

Crenshaw, Kimberle 1991 "Mapping the Margins:Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women ofColor." Stanford Law Review 33(6): 1241-99.

Daniel, Sharon 2005 "Public Secrets." Vectors 2(2). Athttp://vectors.usc.edu/projects/index.php? project=57.

Danner, Mark 2009 "The Red Cross Torture Report: What ItMeans?" New York Review of Books, April 30. Athttp://www.nybooks.eom/artkles/2009/04/30/the-redcross-torture-report-what-it-means/.

Davis, Angela Y. 2005 Abolition Democracy: Prisons, Democracy, andEmpire. New York: Seven Stories.

2011 Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press.

2016 Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and theFoundations of a Movement. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Feinstein, Dianne 2014 "Committee Study of the CentralIntelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program."Senate Intelligence Committee, December 9. Athttp://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/senate-intelligence-committee-study-on-cia-detention-and-interrogation-program.

Forsythe, David P. 2005 The Humanitarians: The InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, Michel 1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of thePrison. London: Penguin Books.

Frank, Janice G. and Ronald L. O'Halloran 2000 "AsphyxialDeath during Prone Restraint Revisited: A Report of 21 Cases." TheAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 21(1): 39-52.

Garvey, Stephen P. 1999 "Did Making Over the Prisons RequireMaking Up the Law." Cornell Law Review 84(5): 1476-501.

Gilmore, Ruth Wilson 2007 Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis,and Opposition in Globalizing California. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Goodale, Mark 2009 Surrendering to Utopia: An Anthropology of HumanRights. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Greenberg, Karen J. and Joshua L. Dratel (eds.) 2005 The TorturePapers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hernandez-Truvol, Berta Esperanza 2002 "Human Rights,Globalization, and Culture." In Moral Imperialism: A CriticalAnthology, edited by Berta Esperanza Hernandez-Truyol, 353-69. New York:New York University Press.

Levy, Robin and Ayelet Waldman 2014 Inside This Place, Not of It:Narratives from Women's Prisons. San Francisco: McSweeney'sPublishing.

Lewis, David 1965 From Newgate to Dannemora: The Rise of thePenitentiary in New York, 1796-1848. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

McCoy, Alfred W. 2009 Policing America's Empire: The UnitedStates, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

McDonough, Tom 2007 The Beautiful Language of My Century:Reinventing the Language of Contestation in Post-War France, 1945-1968.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Moyn, Samuel 2012 "Substance, Scale, and Salience: The RecentHistoriography of Human Rights. "Annual Review of Law and SocialScience 8: 123-40.

Nellis, Ashley 2010 "Throwing Away the Key: The Expansion ofLife without Parole Sentences in the United States ."FederalSentencing Reporter 23(1): 27-32.

Pictet, Jean, et al. 1949 The Geneva Conventions. Geneva,Switzerland: International Committee of the Red Cross.

Price, Joshua M. 2015 Prison and Social Death. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.

Rhodes, Lorna 2004 Total Confinement: Madness and Reason in theMaximum Security Prison. Berkeley: University of California Press.

2009 "Supermax Prisons and the Trajectory of Exception."Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 47: 193-218.

Richie, Beth 2012 Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence, andAmerica's Prison Nation. New York: New York University Press.

Riles, Annelise 2006 "Anthropology, Human Rights, and LegalKnowledge: Culture in the Iron Cage." American Anthropologist108(1): 52-65.

Rodriguez, Dylan 2007 "American Globality and the US PrisonRegime: State Violence and White Supremacy from Abu Ghraib to Stocktonto Bagong Diwa." Kritika Kultura 9: 22-48.

Schulman, Barbara 2004 "Effective Organizing in TerribleTimes: Tie Strategic Value of Human Rights for Transnational Anti-RacistFeminisms." Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 4(2):102-8.

Stern, Alexandra Minna 2005 "Sterilized in the Name of PublicHealth: Race, Immigration, and Reproductive Control in ModernCalifornia." American Journal of Public Health 95(7): 1128-38.

Sudbury, Julia 2004 "A World Without Prisons: ResistingMilitarism, Globalized Punishment, and Empire." Social Justice31(1-2): 9-30.

2014 Global Lockdown: Race, Gender, and the Prison-IndustrialComplex. New York: Routledge.

Sussman, Dana 2008 "Bound by Injustice: Challenging the Use ofShackles on Incarcerated Pregnant Women." Cardozo JL & Gender15: 477-502.

Wacquant, Loic 2002 "The Curious Eclipse of Prison Ethnographyin the Age of Mass Incarceration." Ethnography 3(4): 371-97.

Wilson, Richard Ashby (ed.) 2005 Human Rights in the "War onTerror." Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Susan A. Phillips *

* Susan A. Phillips has studied gangs and the US prison systemsince 1990. She received her PhD in anthropology in 1998 from UCLA andhas published two books, Wallbangin: Graffiti and Gangs in L.A. (TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1999) and Operation Fly Trap: Gangs, Drugs,and the Law (The University of Chicago Press, 2012). She has receivedfunding from the Getty Research Institute (1996,2016), the Open SocietyInstitute's Soros Justice Media Fellows Program (2008), and theHarry Frank Guggenheim Foundation (2005). Phillips is interested intheories of violence, the relationship between gangs and the state, andin utilizing academic writing, pedagogy, and scholarship toward criminaljustice reform. She directs community-based research programs inOntario, California for Pitzer College, where she is Associate Professorof Environmental Analysis.

Figure 1: Side-by-side are the final versions of the two tables ofcontents. Left, the original ICRC report; right the altered report.ICRC Report Altered ReportIntroduction Introduction1. Main Elements of the CIA 1. Main Elements of the US PrisonDetention Program System1.1. Arrest and Transfer 1.1. Arrest and Transfer1.2. Continuous Solitary 1.2. Continuous SolitaryConfinement and Incommunicado ConfinementDetention1.3. Other Methods of Ill- 1.3. Other Methods of Ill-treatment treatment1.3.1. Suffocation by Water 1.3.1. Use of Non-Lethal Weapons1.3.2. Prolonged Stress Standing 1.3.2. Deaths in Custody1.3.3. Beatings by Use of a 1.3.3. Exposure to DiseaseCollar1.3.4. Beating and Kicking 1.3.4. Beating and Kicking1.3.5. Confinement in a Box 1.3.5. Overcrowding1.3.6. Prolonged Nudity 1.3.6. Prolonged Nudity1.3.7. Sleep Deprivation and Use 1.3.7. Sleep Deprivationof Loud Music1.3.8. Exposure to Cold 1.3.8. Exposure to ExtremeTemperature/Cold Water Temperature1.3.9. Prolonged Use of Handcuffs 1.3.9. Prolonged Use of Restraintsand Shackles1.3.10. Threats 1.3.10. Threats1.3.11. Forced Shaving 1.3.11. Rape and Sexual Violence1.3.12. Deprivation/Restricted 1.3.12. Deprivation/RestrictedProvision of Solid Food Provision of Food1.4. Further Elements of the 1.4. Further Elements of theDetention Regime Detention Regime2. Conditions of Detention in 2. Normalized Conditions ofLater Stages Detention3. Health Provision and Role of 3. Health Provision and Role ofMedical Staff Medical Staff4. Legal Aspects Related to 4. Legal Aspects Related toUndisclosed Detention Detention5. Fate of Other Persons Who 5. Fate of Other Persons Who PassPassed through the CIA Detention through the US Prison SystemProgram6. Future Use of the CIA 6. Future use of the US PrisonDetention Program SystemConclusion ConclusionAnnex 1. Annex 1.Annex 2. Annex 2.Notes Notes