Torture and terror post-9/11: The role of social work in responding to torture

Abstract

Whilst terrorism is not a new global phenomenon, the fallout from the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US remain extensive and far reaching, including the sanctioning of harsher security measures and the denigration of human rights and civil liberties. Of particular concern is the move towards torture being an accepted practice for those deemed ‘terror suspects’ or captured ‘enemy’ combatants in countries where the so called ‘war on terror’ is still being played out. This article argues that the social work response, particularly in relation to challenging pro-torture rhetoric, has been limited at best, and to effectively address the problem there must be an international response if social work is to adhere to its obligations under the IFSW Code of Ethics, and fulfil its role as a human rights profession.

Keywords

Australia human rights social justice social work torture ‘war on terror’

Introduction

Torture has served all its masters, human and spiritual, with equal devotion and ferocity. The broader the understanding, the more vigorous and successful the campaign against it. (Jene Moio, 2006: 25)

It is sometimes easier to forget history. Whilst there are many examples of peaceful resistance, we have also seen human beings convey strong political messages through the use of violence, whether by colonial invaders massacring Indigenous populations, separatist or insurgent groups opposing an authoritarian political regime, or brutal totalitarian or fascist governments that have oppressed and killed their own people. Terrorism has unfortunately been alive and well for decades. This collective amnesia has been particularly apparent in the West in the years following the events of 11 September 2001 (hereafter 9/11). Western governments informed a fearful citizenry that everything had changed, and that there was now a need to put aside human rights and civil liberties so that they could combat a ‘new’ type of threat to national security. Criminal laws that already existed to prosecute violent offenders, including acts that would be inclusive in terrorist attacks, such as murder, were now considered incongruous with this ‘new’ type of violence that had an additional political element. An almost infallible enemy was created that required the protectors of freedom and democracy to remain diligent in combating this colossal threat to ‘our way of life’.

The international rebound effect of the criminal act that took place on 9/11 has been phenomenal. Over the past decade, hundreds of thousands of civilians have subsequently lost their lives in retaliatory attacks (Bohannon, 2011; Burnham et al., 2006; Moulton, 2004), there have been assassinations and mass assaults (Soherwordi and Khattak, 2011; Wolverton, 2011), thousands of people have been detained unlawfully for over a decade and denied due process (Amnesty International, 2011), some have disappeared (Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, 2005; Gimbel, 2011), and some have even been tortured to death (Allen et al., 2006).

The torture and ill-treatment of those whom have been detained as a result of the so-called War on Terror is one of the most troubling aspects of the post-9/11 era. This kind of rhetoric takes the world back to periods of history that one would like to think was far behind us, given the international institutions and mechanisms that were established after the Second World War. Universal human rights protections were designed to protect the rights of all human beings; including those who the powers-that-be deemed to be undeserving of safeguards, or those who were considered to be less than human.

Numerous studies have determined that it is this dehumanization (Bandura, 1999), or the constructed otherness of those being tortured that cultivates violence towards the targeted group of people, or creates a ‘torture sustaining reality’ (Crelinsten, 2003; Doucette, 2010). In light of this, the role of social work, as a profession that has an underlying foundation of human rights and social justice principles (Roby and Ife, 2009), is of paramount importance in addressing the political context that gives rise to torture and in responding to any attempt to dehumanise a group of people, or label them as social outcasts.

This article argues that it is because social work is a global human rights profession (Ife, 2008), committed to social justice and well-being, it must be actively engaged in counteracting violence, separatist or dehumanizing language and political rhetoric that is misleading or counterintuitive to social cohesion, community well-being and peace with justice (Rees, 2003). Although every context of practice is different, this shift in focus must occur holistically and collaboratively on a global basis due to the changing social and political landscape worldwide, including in Western countries, and particularly in relation to torture and militarism. The common thread that binds all contexts is our shared infallible humanity, and the right to be free from torture.

Social work as a human rights and social justice profession

Social work has, from its conception, been a human rights profession, having as its basic tenet the intrinsic value of every human being, and as one of its main aims the promotion of equitable social structures, which can offer people security and development while upholding their dignity. (International Federation of Social Workers, 1988)

Practice standards outline an obligation for social workers to gain knowledge and an understanding of socio-political issues that impact on wellbeing (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2003; International Federation of Social Workers, 2001). Essential to this is the recognition that individual needs are influenced by social and political factors (Ferguson and Woodward, 2009; Fook, 2010; Mullaly, 2002; Thompson, 2009). Therefore, both practice and education standards advocate the critical analysis of power and social structures that take into account systemic and public issues, rather than a primarily individual focus (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2003; International Federation of Social Workers, 2001). Within this framework, having an understanding of human rights concepts is integral to exploring, naming and then responding to human rights abuses on a policy or macro-level (Barclay, 1998; Boulet, 2009; Briskman, 2010; Cohen et al., 2001; Dishon et al., 2009; Solas, 2000, 2008).

Whilst the role of social work in the international human rights arena has a long history (Healy, 2008), it has been somewhat been obfuscated in the past 10 years, coinciding with the focus on individualist practice, the neo-liberalist context of social work and the increased security environment (Ife, 2008). Although not discounting the argument that social work takes many forms depending on the practice context (Hugman et al., 2010), many researchers have lamented the fact that social work in general has failed to focus on global issues and structural practice (Ferguson and Woodward, 2009). Instead, social work education, training, and consequently practice, has continued to promote individualistic-centred social work that has stifled political dissent and activism, and failed to adequately incorporate human rights and social justice into core social work practice (Finn and Jacobson, 2003; Hugman, 2001) .

There are many different perspectives on why this has occurred. On an educational level, the focus on behaviourist theories and psychological reasons for ‘individual’ problems has left social workers with a narrower lens from which to view the world. Even though there are notable exceptions, working with the individual has been the core of social work education, rather than advocacy or activism. At a meso-level, many organizations have been concerned about challenging government policy publicly, as it may impact on their funding and therefore jeopardize the services they are providing the people with whom they work (Nash, 2003). With the onset of managerialism and neo-liberalism, also came the focus on increased outputs with more limited resources. This increased workload in-turn leaves social workers with less time to devote to structural or international issues (Thompson, 2009).

In addition, researchers have noted that some social workers are afraid to ‘make waves’ for fear that they will lose their jobs because they have taken a stand on political or controversial issues (Briskman, 2008; Wagner, 2009). Others point to the push for professionalism by national social work bodies, and that some social workers are captivated by the status that this notion of professionalism affords (Wagner, 2009).

However, regardless of the context of practice or the reasons why social workers have been reluctant to engage in activism, international social work bodies recognize that in this age of globalization, issues of human rights, peace and social justice are interlinked (International Federation of Social Workers, 2000), and, that social workers need to take an international, multidisciplinary grassroots approach to take action against human rights abuses and advocate for change (International Federation of Social Workers, 1996).

This has never been more pertinent, given the rise of the national security state that overwhelmingly operates with impunity, the denigration of human rights and civil liberties, and the increased acceptability of torture in the general community.

Torture and its impact

At a minimum, the 1984 Convention Against Torture defines torture as the intentional infliction of pain or suffering by a public official for the purpose of obtaining a confession or as a punishment. Although this is the most widely accepted international definition of torture, the scope has widened in some legal jurisdictions to non-state actor torture and has been inclusive of acts that constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which are also non-derogable under the Convention (UN Committee Against Torture, 2008). Definitions of torture change with the context and jurisdiction.

The use of torture increased globally in the 20th century and Einolf (2007) suggests this was due to the nature and severity of wars. Although worldwide conflict has remained steady over the past 15 years (Hewitt et al., 2012), the development of so-called clean torture techniques, that is, torture that leaves no marks, has increasingly been employed by democratic governments (Rejali, 2007). These acts, innocuously termed ‘clean’ or ‘torture lite’ may include: isolation, sensory deprivation, forced standing and stress positions, sleep deprivation and waterboarding (Danner, 2009; Rejali, 2007). It is these acts that were sanctioned for use against those detained in the War on Terror by the former Bush administration whose lawyers deemed that for an act to constitute torture, the physical pain must be ‘equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death’ (as cited in Greenberg and Dratel, 2005).

Research demonstrates that psychological techniques, specifically designed to break minds and spirits, cause significant psychological harm, and some believe that the impact of these techniques are far worse than physical torture (Başoğlu, 2009). The techniques used to torture have changed and developed depending on the context, the reasons for engaging in torture, and means available to those who carry out the act (Rejali, 2007). Whether a public display of power as occurred in Syria, West Papua, or Liberia, or torture carried out behind closed doors in CIA black sites or Guantanamo Bay, the destruction and devastation torture leaves in its wake is shattering, both to the individual and their families, as well as the broader communities. Recent studies contend, torture is not an act committed by a ‘few bad apples’, it is normalized, institutionalized, socially embedded and systematized in practice (Bower, 2007; Gordon, 2009).

Scarry (1985) notes that the nature of torture is such that it destroys the self and removes voice of the survivor, relabelling the pain as non-existent or unworthy, thereby removing humanity and destroying any semblance of trust in other human beings (see also Herman, 1997; Sarson and MacDonald, 2008; Skar, 1997). As Herman (1997) notes, torture is not just a physical act, but also a political act; it is political violence (see also Danner, 2009). In its essence, it destroys language and deconstructs the survivor’s voice, thereby allowing the powerful to redefine the act, shift the focus off the act to whether the person is deserving or undeserving of the treatment, and in the process, creating the Other (Philipose, 2007; Scarry, 1985). It is this construction of the Other (Fairbain, 2009), relabelled the terrorist or the enemy, as separate from us, and in turn devoid of human qualities that can be afforded human rights and dignity, that is inherent in destroying empathy and disconnecting the survivor from the community (McAlister et al., 2006). It is also the first step in what Fairbain (2009) calls the creation of a torture-sustaining reality (Crelinsten, 2003; Doucette, 2010; Jackson, 2007) and the social conditions that give rise to brutal acts such as torture (Bandura, 1999, 2002; McAlister et al., 2006).

Attitudes towards torture

Although limited in its methodology, a 2006 BBC World Service study found that 59 percent of people surveyed in 25 different countries are opposed to torture (BBC World Service, 2006). According to the results, acceptance of torture appeared to coincide with countries that experienced high incidences of political violence, such as India and Israel (BBC World Service, 2006). Since 2009, however, an emergent rise in the acceptability of torture has appeared in countries like the US and Australia.

Research conducted by Gronke et al. (2010) indicate that there appears to be a shift towards a pro-torture majority in the US since the first election of President Barack Obama (Rejali, 2010; The Pew Research Centre, 2009). Rejali (2010) notes that torture has become a partisan issue, and that conservative Republican voters are more likely to support torture and the death penalty than the Democrats. The shift also appears to be occurring in Australia, a country with a strong military and political alliance with the United States. A 2009 Australian Red Cross study found that more than 40 percent of Australians, and 50 percent of those in the Australian Defence Force, thought it was acceptable to torture captured enemy soldiers in circumstances where they are looking to obtain important military information¹ (Australian Red Cross, 2009; Rejali, 2010).

These results are extremely troubling and of great concern to social workers for a number of reasons. First, because they demonstrate that the torture majority is increasing in the United States and Australia and, through this acceptance of torture, there is an implicit recognition that some people are undeserving of human rights protections – that is, those labelled terrorists or enemies. And second, the results indicate an acceptance of political rhetoric that concludes that the curtailing of human rights protections are a prerequisite for increased security and protection from terrorist attacks. This provides for a very precarious and concerning social climate, particularly for the vulnerable communities that social workers work alongside.

Concerns for social work

Engstrom and Okamura (2004) note that social workers need to understand torture, not only because it impacts tens of thousands of people who they may work with, but also because the larger scale social impacts are often missed (Thomas, 2011). It is apparent, however, that social work responses to torture in the public and political realm have been limited. There is little visible response to the socio-political situation that has given rise to the acceptability of torture, and particularly the ‘outcasting’ of certain groups of people in the current context.

There are a number of residual and long-term impacts of the creation of a torture sustaining reality or one that reifies or implicitly or explicitly condones violence of that nature (Macmaster, 2004). These impacts include: the erosion of human rights (Rogers, 2007), the deformation of ethics and moral values (Gordon, 2009), the recreation of a national identity embedded in violence (Milam, 2004), the redefinition of social norms that then include institutional or organizational behaviours that contravene human rights standards (Wright-Smith, 2007), the social exclusion or ‘outcasting’ of certain groups of people, particularly Muslim men (Lazar and Lazar, 2004) or a community that lacks empathy or is openly hostile to the survivor (Culhane, 2009; Philadelphoff-Puren, 2007).

In addition, recent studies from the US contend that the unconsciousness and denial present in a society that condones torture leads to further acts of violence or the legitimization of violence (Crelinsten, 2003), and that this violence becomes racialized and sexualized (Philipose, 2007). Of significant concern is the trickle-down effect that occurs when torture and violence is normalized (Bandura, 2006). Studies have found that techniques used during war time are commonly exported into the domestic sphere, whether that be in relation to gender based violence and violence against children in the family context, or returned soldiers who then go on to work in local police stations or as prison guards (Rejali, 2007; Sarson and MacDonald, 2009b).

The US led War on Terror has brought many of these issues onto the doorstep of many Western countries, particularly those which have a strong military alliance with the US. Returning soldiers experience high rates of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and suicide. Startling trends demonstrate that in the US, 18 war veterans die from suicide daily, which is a greater number than those who die in combat (Waitzkin et al., 2012). Many returned soldiers also experience problems with substance abuse (Phillips, 2010). These far-reaching and debilitating impacts of war and violence have been carefully hidden from the public eye, mainly due to the powerful political narrative that has been built up over the years, and a mostly compliant media.

War on Terror narrative

The use of the predominant United States security narrative that has justified the use of torture and the need to remove human rights protections to counter the so-called threat to Western values has been particularly destructive and global in its reach. The manifestation of this has been a decade of fear-driven rhetoric, and the softening of the language of violence. An apposite example was the Bush administration’s use of the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ narrative to describe acts that clearly contravened the UN Convention Against Torture, such as waterboarding or stress positions. This has led to other oppressive regimes using similar language to redefine brutal acts that contravene international human rights protections in an attempt to abdicate responsibility.

The re-contextualization of the War on Terror narrative has also been used to justify the torture and violence against certain groups in other nations. Erjavec and Volcic (2007) examined the way in which Serbian intellectuals used George W. Bush’s discourse in order to retroactively legitimize the bloodshed against Muslim communities in Kosovo and Bosnia by classing them as terrorists. The narrative has been extended in many contexts globally, and used to further oppress vulnerable groups of people.

There is also an added element of the ‘if they can do it, so can we’ phenomenon. If the most powerful military nation can continue to operate with impunity, then it paves the way for other states to function in the same fashion with the justification that the US and its allies do it.

The role of social work in responding to torture and the War on Terror

From a therapeutic position, regaining trust in other human beings, and re-establishing connection with the community can only occur through validation (Barclay, 1998), and naming as well as condemning torture (Chambon et al., 2001; Herman, 2005; Scarry, 1985). Central to human rights based social work is the idea of mutual trust in what Freire calls ‘the naming of the world’ (Freire, 1970; Morley and Ife, 2002). The ‘naming of the world’ – in this case the narrative surrounding torture and whether it is implicitly or overtly condoned – is therefore of great concern to social work as a means of re-establishing the humanity of the survivor, preventing re-victimization, restoring trust in other human beings and creating a safe space in the community where the healing can begin (Herman, 2005; Sarson and MacDonald, 2009a).

However, assisting torture survivors to rebuild and heal requires much more than an individualist approach. Herman (1997) notes that violence, such as torture, cannot be treated on an individual basis due to the political nature and deeply embedded structural problems that give rise to torture. Given this, social work must have an understanding of the political context of torture, particularly in the post-9/11 setting (Engstrom and Okamura, 2004), and then situate itself in a broader global position and contest perspectives that help maintain and legitimize torture (Finn and Jacobson, 2003; Sewpaul, 2007).

This includes developing a focus on international social work education that takes into account the changing political and social contexts in which social work is practised globally, a further engagement in consciousness-raising activities, and undertaking advocacy strategies and practices that support the alleviation of human suffering on a local and global level (Dominelli, 2010; Dominelli and Hackett, 2012; Gordon and Berkovitch, 2007; Ife, 2008).

Challenging militarism and violence-strategies for change

An acknowledgement by the international and national social work bodies that the pro-torture majority and the security narrative is an issue that deserves attention is the starting point. The uncomfortable reality that torture is not just an issue for a small African or South American nation on the other side of the world must be recognized.

With this acknowledgement come inroads for change as policy and education can then be amended to focus on the changing needs of an international globalized community. Part of this shift must include the move away from the focus on individualist centred practice to address emerging social issues holistically and effectively.

Essential to social work in contemporary practice is the promotion of human rights and peace through confronting militarism and violence (International Federation of Social Workers, 2000; Lundy, 2011; Lundy and van Wormer, 2007). For the most part, and particularly after the 1920s, social workers have been reluctant to engage in social activism that directly challenges structures (Abramovitz, 1998; Epstein, 1969; Epstein and Reeser, 1990; Ferguson and Woodward, 2009; Lees, 1972). Nevertheless, The Manual for Schools of Social Work and the Social Work Profession states that advocacy is the core focus of social work from a human rights framework (United Nations, 1994).

If the structurally embedded violence that gives rise to the larger scale social impact of torture is not addressed, it will lead to a perpetuation of violent rhetoric and the inevitable social issues associated with the normalization and legitimization of violence. Therefore, playing an active role in challenging the narrative around terrorism and torture, especially in the media (Ross, 2007), is a crucial step to overcoming political violence (Post, 2010), establishing a space where survivors of torture can heal (Herman, 2005), and creating a ‘rights respecting’ community.

Social work strategies that draw on existing theories for social change and challenging dominant narratives are an essential branching point to address this issue publicly. Tim Gee’s Counterpower theory (2011) describes several types of Counterpower: idea Counterpower, which is exercised through challenging accepted truths, refusing to obey and finding new channels of communication; economic Counterpower, that may be exercised through boycotts strikes and ethical consumption; and physical Counterpower, which means non-violently placing bodies in the way of injustice (Gee, 2011).

Idea Counterpower is particularly pertinent in this situation, as the political rhetoric has been so destructive. Gramsci spoke of hegemony as the control by which the powerful normalize their own view of the world, thereby remaining in control (Benedetto, 2006). By utilizing idea Counterpower, the dominant idea, such as the supposed necessity to curtail human rights to prevent terrorist attacks, or that it is acceptable to torture certain groups of people, is challenged and communicated to create new ways of thinking and challenge the abuse of power. This can be carried out effectively by utilizing an inter-disciplinary and collaborative approach with those already addressing these issues, and by embracing social media.

Challenging ideas through the use of social media has never been more powerful as communities no longer need to watch television or read the newspaper to obtain information. Alternative forms of communication such as Twitter and Facebook have broken down borders and brought social issues from across the globe into the mainstream sphere, and have become a powerful tool for activists. These methods of communication have also brought about the means to challenge the mainstream rhetoric, and provide alternative information and views. Idea Counterpower is but one way that social workers can begin to challenge this powerful rhetoric and contribute to broader social change.

Political activism

Theorists such as Jacobson and Finn (2008) and Lundy (2011) contend that due to the current challenges to social justice and human rights globally, including the multiple forms of violence that expose limits of the social work imagination, social work strategies need to adapt and develop. They propose strategies that include social workers having a greater understanding of the broader contextual issues faced by an increasingly globalized world, and working to address these through structural means.

This includes the need for social workers to engage in political action, which is key to addressing such an inherently politically driven and complex issue (Mmatli, 2008). Rather than focusing on the individual and communities as victims, political activism sees the focus of action on challenging oppressive discourse, and structures (Webb and Gray, 2009). Central to this is understanding the ways in which power is exercised, and concurrently ensuring that where there has been an abuse of power, that the resultant injustice is addressed (Rees, 2003). Calling for accountability for those who ordered and carried out torture is a necessary step to ensure future torture prevention. The current culture of impunity has contributed to the acceptance of torture and its use, and the subsequent negation of responsibility under international human rights law. But justice is not assured through the legal system. Accountability comes from recognizing and acknowledging the injustice, and then taking steps to address the damage done in a tangible way. In this context, change is solely dependent on political will, and therefore a contextually appropriate political strategy is needed.

The response to torture and the subsequent curtailment of human rights post-9/11 must be visibly challenged at an international level by social work as a human rights profession if it is to adhere to its obligations as outlined by the IFSW and re-align itself in a globalized world (Mohan, 2005, 2007). This response can only be carried out holistically, publicly and internationally, in a way that takes into account the political and social context that has developed a pro-torture and pro-violence rhetoric in different parts of the world.

Ignoring the broader issues such as torture and war is counterintuitive to the core goal of social work, which is to enhance well-being, promote change and social transformation (Morley and Ife, 2002). Passive acceptance of the status quo and damaging and dehumanizing politics, leads to silent complicity.

Conclusion

Social work on an international scale is failing to adequately respond to a growing torture majority, and a community that is accepting that some groups are undeserving of human rights protections. Due to the fallout from the so-called War on Terror, draconian legislation and the denigration of human rights and civil liberties, remain a great challenge (Walker, 2011). The current situation in Western nations indicates a shift towards acceptance of torture or violence towards ‘captured enemies’ in lieu of human rights and civil liberties. The implications are concerning. Studies contend that the way in which torture is publicly constructed influences people’s attitudes towards the survivors or victims, and can have a long term impact on the broader social fabric (Athey, 2008; Bennett et al., 2006; Crelinsten, 2003; Doucette, 2010; Jones and Sheets, 2009). This provides an imperative for social workers to participate in political advocacy on a global level to not only counteract implicit or explicit political messages that normalise violence such as torture, but also to ensure that individual survivors are able to heal in a safe community environment.

Preventing and eradicating torture is a crucial step to achieving a peaceful world and the well-being of all human beings. Whilst social workers hold a professional commitment to uphold human rights (International Federation of Social Workers, 1996), they also hold an ethical duty to investigate, expose and work to prevent any acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment through fact-finding, and then engaging in peaceful activism and international social work practice to challenge oppressive and violent structures.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to extend heartfelt thanks to Linda Briskman, Brian Martin, Barbara Fawcett and the two anonymous reviewers for providing thoughtful feedback and editing suggestions.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biography

Aloysia Brooks is a human rights and social justice advocate who has worked as the casework coordinator for Amnesty International Australia and other human rights organizations. Aloysia is currently writing her PhD and lecturers in human rights and public policy. Aloysia has a special interest in examining contemporary forms of torture and the impact of such methods, accountability and torture prevention.

References

Abramovitz

(1998) ‘Social Work and Social Reform: An Arena of Struggle’, Social Work 43: 512–26.

Allen

S. A.

Rich

J. D.

Bux

R. C.

. (2006) ‘Deaths of Detainees in the Custody of US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2002 to 2005’, MedGenMed: Medscape General Medicine 8: 46.

Amnesty International (2011) USA Guantanamo: A Decade of Damage to Human Rights. London: Amnesty International.

Athey

(2008) ‘Rethinking Torture’s Dark Chamber’, Peace Review 20: 13–21.

Australian Association of Social Workers (2003) Practice Standards for Social Workers: Achieving Outcomes. Canberra: Australian Association of Social Workers.

Australian Red Cross (2009) ‘People on War’. Available online at: http://www.redcross.org.au/ihl/media/Red_Cross_people-on-war-august12.pdf.

Bandura

(1999) ‘Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities’, Personality and Social Psychology Review 3: 193–209.

Bandura

(2002) ‘Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency’, Journal of Moral Education 31: 101–19.

Bandura

(2006) ‘A Murky Portrait of Human Cruelty’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29: 225–6.

10.

Barclay

H.H.

(1998) ‘Validating Tortured Refugees: Reconnection in Social Work Policy and Practice’, International Social Work 41: 211–26.

11.

Başoğlu

(2009) ‘A Multivariate Contextual Analysis of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatments: Implications for an Evidence-based Definition of Torture’, The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 79: 135–45.

12.

BBC World Service (2006) ‘World Citizens Reject Torture, Global Poll Reveals’ (accessed 29 October 2010).

13.

Benedetto

(2006) ‘The Democratic Philosopher: Rhetoric as Hegemony in Gramsci’, Italian Culture 23: 26.

14.

Bennett

W.L.

Lawrence

R.G.

Livingston

(2006) ‘None Dare Call It Torture: Indexing and the Limits of Press Independence in the Abu Ghraib Scandal’, Journal of Communication 56: 467–85.

15.

Bohannon

(2011) ‘The War in Afghanistan. Counting the Dead in Afghanistan’, Science 331: 1256.

16.

Boulet

(2009) ‘For a Solidarity Based Practice in the Globalising Context’, in Allan

Briskman

Pease

(eds) Critical Social Work: Theories and Practices for a Socially Just World, 2nd edn, pp. 281–95. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

17.

Bower

(2007) Thereby Become a Monster: Complex Organizations and the Torture at Abu Ghraib. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.

18.

Briskman

(2008) ‘Recasting Social Work: Human Rights’, Eileen Younghusband Lecture, Durban.

19.

Briskman

(2010) ‘Radical Social Work in Practice: Making a Difference’, Australian Social Work 63: 364–66.

20.

Burnham

Lafta

Doocy

. (2006) ‘Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-sectional Cluster Sample Survey’, The Lancet 368: 1421–8.

21.

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (2005) Fate and Whereabouts Unknown: Detainees in the ‘War on Terror’. New York: New York University School of Law.

22.

Chambon

A.S.

McGrath

Shapiro

B.Z.

. (2001) ‘From Interpersonal Links to Webs of Relations: Creating Befriending Relationships with Survivors of Torture and of War’, Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation 2: 157–71.

23.

Cohen

de la Vega

Watson

(2001) Advocacy for Social Justice: A Global Action and Reflection Guide. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarin Press Inc.

24.

Crelinsten

R.D.

(2003) ‘The World of Torture: A Constructed Reality’, Theoretical Criminology 7: 293–318.

25.

Culhane

M.A.

(2009) Suffering Strangers: The Social Construction of the Torture Survivor in the American Healing Community. Boston, MA: Boston University Press.

26.

Danner

(2009) Stripping Bare the Body: Politics, Violence, War. Melbourne: Black Inc.

27.

Dishon

A.J.

Collins

K.V.

Gargotto

. (2009) ‘Building the Unsettling Force: Social Workers and the Struggle for Human Rights’, Journal of Community Practice 17: 309–22.

28.

Dominelli

(2010) ‘Globalization, Contemporary Challenges and Social Work Practice’, International Social Work 53: 599–612.

29.

Dominelli

Hackett

(2012) ‘Internationalising Social Work Theory and Practice’, International Social Work 55: 151–3.

30.

Doucette

J.F.

(2010) The Social Construction of a Torture Sustaining Reality: A Rhetorical Analysis of Claims-making about Terrorism as a Social Problem in the United States Post 9/11. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

31.

Einolf

C.J.

(2007) ‘The Fall and Rise of Torture: A Comparative and Historical Analysis’, Sociological Theory 25: 101–21.

32.

Engstrom

Okamura

(2004) ‘A Plague of Our Time: Torture, Human Rights, and Social Work’, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 85: 291–300.

33.

Epstein

(1969) ‘Professionalization and Social-Work Activism’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

34.

Epstein

Reeser

L.C.

(1990) Professionalization and Activism in Social Work: The Sixties, the Eighties, and the Future. New York: Columbia University Press.

35.

Erjavec

Volcic

(2007) “War on Terrorism” as a Discursive Battleground: Serbian Recontextualization of G.W. Bush’s Discourse’, Discourse & Society 18: 123–37.

36.

Fairbain

(2009) ‘Empathy, Sympathy, and the Image of the Other’, Peace Review 21: 20.

37.

Ferguson

Woodward

(2009) Radical Social Work in Practice: Making a Difference. Bristol: The Polity Press.

38.

Finn

Jacobson

(2003) ‘Just Practice: Steps toward a New Social Work Paradigm’, Journal of Social Work Education 39: 57–78.

39.

Fook

(2010) Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice. London: SAGE.

40.

Freire

(1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

41.

Gee

(2011) Counterpower: Making Change Happen. Oxford: New Internationalist Publications Ltd.

42.

Gimbel

V.N.

(2011) ‘Has the Rendition Program Disappeared?’, Foreign Policy in Focus.

43.

Gordon

Berkovitch

(2007) ‘Human Rights Discourse in Domestic Settings: How Does it Emerge?’, Political Studies 55: 243–66.

44.

Gordon

(2009) ‘The Practice of Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 Era’, PhD dissertation, Graduate Theological Union.

45.

Greenberg

K.J.

Dratel

J.L.

(2005) The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Gronke

Rejali

Drenguis

. (2010) ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Torture, 2001–2009’, PS: Political Science and Politics 43: 437–44.

47.

Healy

L.M.

(2008) ‘Exploring the History of Social Work as a Human Rights Profession’, International Social Work 51: 735–48.

48.

Herman

J.L.

(1997) Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.

49.

Herman

J.L.

(2005) ‘Justice from the Victim’s Perspective’, Violence against Women 11: 571–602.

50.

Hewitt

Wilkenfeld

Gurr

(2012) Peace and Conflict 2012: Executive Summary. College Park, MD: The Centre for International Development and Conlict Management.

51.

Hugman

(2001) ‘Post-welfare Social Work? Reconsidering Post-modernism, Post-Fordism and Social Work Education’, Social Work Education 20: 321–33.

52.

Hugman

Moyo

Moosa-Mitha

(2010) ‘Towards a Borderless Social Work: Reconsidering Notions of International Social Work’, International Social Work 53: 629–43.

53.

Ife

(2008) Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights Based Practice. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

54.

International Federation of Social Workers (1988) ‘Human Rights’, International Policy Papers, IFSW, Geneva.

55.

International Federation of Social Workers (1996) ‘Human Rights Policy’, available online at: http://ifsw.org/policies/human-rights-policy/.

56.

International Federation of Social Workers (2000) ‘Peace and Social Justice Policy’, available online at: http://ifsw.org/policies/peace-and-social-justice/.

57.

International Federation of Social Workers (2001) ‘Global Standards for the Education and Training of the Social Work Profession’, available online at: http://ifsw.org/policies/global-standards/.

58.

Jackson

(2007) ‘Language, Policy and the Construction of a Torture Culture in the War on Terrorism’, Review of International Studies 33: 353–71.

59.

Jacobson

Finn

J.L.

(2008) Just Practice: A Social Justice Approach to Social Work. Peosta, IA: Eddie Bowers Publishing.

60.

Jones

Sheets

(2009) ‘Torture in the Eye of the Beholder: Social Identity, News Coverage, and Abu Ghraib’, Political Communication 26: 278–95.

61.

Lazar

M.M.

(2004) ‘The Discourse of the New World Order: “Out-casting” the Double Face of Threat’, Discourse & Society 15: 223–42.

62.

Lees

(1972) Politics and Social Work. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

63.

Lundy

(2011) Social Work, Social Justice and Human Rights: A Structural Approach to Practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

64.

Lundy

van Wormer

(2007) ‘Social and Economic Justice, Human Rights and Peace’, International Social Work 50: 727–39.

65.

Macmaster

(2004) ‘Torture: From Algiers to Abu Ghraib’, Race & Class 46: 1–21.

66.

McAlister

A.L.

Bandura

Owen

S.V.

(2006) ‘Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in Support of Military Force: The Impact of Sept. 11’, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 25: 141–65.

67.

Milam

(2004) ‘Torture and the American Character’, The Humanist 64: 24.

68.

Mmatli

(2008) ‘Political Activism as a Social Work Strategy in Africa’, International Social Work 51: 297–310.

69.

Mohan

(2005) ‘New Internationalism: Social Work’s Dilemmas, Dreams and Delusion’, International Social Work 48: 241–50.

70.

Mohan

(2007) ‘Globalisation, Democratisation, and Human Rights: Human Made Disasters and a Call for Universal Social Justice’, in Reichert

(ed.) Challenges in Human Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.

71.

Moio

J.A.

(2006) ‘Torture: Advances and Limitations in Explanatory Theories and Implications for Cross Cultural Social Work’, Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work 15: 1–30.

72.

Morley

Ife

(2002) ‘Social Work and a Love of Humanity’, Australian Social Work 55: 69–77.

73.

Moulton

L.H.

(2004) ‘Civilian Victims in an Asymmetrical Conflict: Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan’, Journal of Peace Research 41: 403–22.

74.

Mullaly

R.P.

(2002) Challenging Oppression: A Critical Social Work Approach. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

75.

Nash

(2003) ‘Social Work Education: Agencies and Academic Disciplines’, International Social Work 46: 23–35.

76.

Philadelphoff-Puren

. (2007) ‘Genre’s Judgment: Discrediting Torture Testimony in the War on Terror. The New Exceptionalism: Law and Literature since 9/11’, Law and Literature 19: 229–45.

77.

Philipose

(2007) ‘The Politics of Pain and the Uses of Torture’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 32: 1047–71.

78.

Phillips

(2010) None of Us were Like this Before: American Soldiers and Torture. New York: Verso.

79.

Post

J.M.

(2010) ‘When Hatred is Bred in the Bone: The Social Psychology of Terrorism’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1208: 15–23.

80.

Rees

(2003) Passion for Peace: Exercising Power Creatively. Sydney: UNSW Press.

81.

Rejali

(2007) Torture and Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

82.

Rejali

(2010) ‘Torture: Where are We At?’, Amnesty International Activist Centre, Sydney.

83.

Roby

J.L.

Ife

(2009) ‘Human Rights, Politics and Intercountry Adoption’, International Social Work 52: 661–71.

84.

Rogers

(2007) ‘Free Flesh: The Matrix, the War on Iraq and the Torture of Democracy’, Law, Culture and the Humanities 3: 416–34.

85.

Ross

J.I.

(2007) ‘Deconstructing the Terrorism-News Media Relationship’, Crime, Media, Culture 3: 215–25.

86.

Sarson

MacDonald

(2008) ‘Ritual Abuse-torture within Families/Groups’, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 16: 419–38.

87.

Sarson

MacDonald

(2009a) ‘Behavioural Harms: Enforced and Survival Tactics in Ritual Abuse-torture and Victimization’, paper at 31st SALIS Conference, Setting Sail: Best Practices for the Next Decade, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

88.

Sarson

MacDonald

(2009b) ‘Torturing by Non-State Actors Invisibilized, a Partiarchal Divide and Spillover Violence from the Military Sphere into the Domestic Sphere’, Peace Studies Journal 2: 17–38.

89.

Scarry

(1985) The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York: Oxford University Press.

90.

Sewpaul

(2007) ‘Challenging East–West Value Dichotomies and Essentialising Discourse on Culture and Social Work’, The International Journal of Social Welfare 16: 398–407.

91.

Skar

S.D.

(1997) ‘Political Violence in Latin American Narrative: Re-presenting Torture and the Re-constructing “I”, unpublished PhD, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

92.

Soherwordi

S.H.S.

Khattak

S.M.

(2011) ‘Operation Geronimo: Assassination of Osama Bin Laden and its Implications on the US–Pakistan Relations, War on Terror, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda’, South Asian Studies 26: 349.

93.

Solas

(2000) ‘Can a Radical Social Worker Believe in Human Rights?’, Australian Social Work 53: 65–70.

94.

Solas

(2008) ‘Social Work and Social Justice: What are We Fighting For?’, Australian Social Work 61: 124–36.

95.

The Pew Research Centre (2009) ‘Public Remains Divided Over Torture’, The Pew Research Centre.

96.

Thomas

N.K.

(2011) ‘On Turning a Blind Eye and a Deaf Ear: Society’s Response to the Use of Torture’, International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 61: 6–25.

97.

Thompson

(2009) ‘Radical Social Work in these Contemporary Times’, Journal of Progressive Human Services 20: 110–11.

98.

UN Committee Against Torture (2008) General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties.

99.

United Nations (1994) Human Rights and Social Work: A Manual for Schools of Social Work and the Social Work Profession. Geneva: UN.

100.

Wagner

(2009) ‘Radical Social Work as Conceit’, Journal of Progressive Human Services 20: 104–06.

101.

Waitzkin

Englehart

Bossarte

(2012) ‘AJPH Supplement on Military Suicide’, American Journal of Public Health 102: E7.

102.

Walker

(2011) Independent National Security Legislation Monitor: Annual Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

103.

Webb

Gray

(2009) ‘The Return of the Political in Social Work’, International Journal of Social Welfare 18: 111–15.

104.

Wolverton

(2011) ‘Kill on Command: Since President Obama Ordered the Assassination of Anwar al-Awiaki without a Trial, It Behooves Us to Examine Exactly What Crimes He is Accused of Committing’, The New American 27.

105.

Wright-Smith

(2007) Talking about Torture: U.S. Discourse and the Case of Guantanamo Bay. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.