American Psychological Association President responds to members upset about psychologists’ participation in Guantanamo interrogations
Gerald Koocher, President of the American Psychological Association, is sending the following email to those members who protested APA support for psychologists’ participation in the hell that is Guantanamo [For my original email to him and the APA CEO go here.]:
The APA Board of Directors understands and appreciates that its members have strong opinions about psychologists’ involvement in interrogations, and that their opinions are not uniform. Please recognize that interrogation does not equate to torture and that many civilian and military contexts exist in which psychologists ethically participate in information gathering in the public interest without harming anyone or violating our ethical code. Please also examine press reports with healthy skepticism and seek facts, rather than reflexively engaging in letter-writing campaigns predicated on inadequate access to the data.
The Board has adopted as APA policy a Task Force Report, which unequivocally prohibits psychologists from engaging in, participating, or countenancing torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. As the basis for its position, the Task Force looked first to Principle A in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, “Do No Harm,” and then to Principle B, which addresses psychologists’ responsibilities to society. Both ethical responsibilities are central to the profession of psychology. By virtue of Principle A, psychologists do no harm. By virtue of Principle B, psychologists use their expertise in, and understanding of, human behavior to aid in the prevention of harm.
In both domestic and national security-related contexts, these ethical principles converge as psychologists are mandated to take affirmative steps to prevent harm to individuals being questioned and, at the same time, to assist in eliciting reliable information that may prevent harm to others.
It is critical to note that in addressing these issues through a Task Force report, the American Psychological Association was responding to psychologists in national security settings who had approached APA seeking guidance in the most ethical course of action. The Board views as its responsibility supporting our colleagues and members who are striving to do the right thing. The Board encourages its members who have different points of view on this or any issue to make their positions known, and welcomes the opportunity for further discussion of this issue at the August Council meeting.
Here is my reply to this disgusting statement:
Dear Dr. Koocher,
Thank you for your reply to my recent email regarding the American Psychological Association’s condoning of psychologists’ particpation in “coercive interrogations”, aka, torture, at Guantanamo and similar secret facilities. Would you please explain on what basis the APA knows better than the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the UN Committee on Torture, or Amnesty International, among dozens of international organizations that, in these total institutions, “interrogation does not equate to torture”? As you are no doubt aware, these organizations have unanimously stated that what occurs at Guantanamo IS torture? Has APA been able to conduct the type of onsight investigation, including private interviews with detainees, that have been denied the United Nations and other organizations?
On what basis do you make the assertion that to “assist in eliciting reliable information that may prevent harm to others?” As you are no doubt aware, there is extensive evidence that participation in torture does NOT lead to “reliable information.” And even if it did, is it now APA policy that psychologists may particpate in illegal activity in order to POSSIBLY (I note your “may”) “prevent harm to others?” For, as you are no doubt aware, numerous international organizations, including the two United Nations committees mentioned, have made clear that the existence of Guantanamo is illegal under international law. You are also no doubt aware that the Secretary General of the United Nations has called for the closing of Guantanamo.
You further state that “The Board views as its responsibility supporting our colleagues and members who are striving to do the right thing.” What in the world is this “right thing” our collegaues are “striving to do?” I assume it is protecting their careers while still being able to sleep at night. And why is supporting their “striving” more important than they, or APA ,actually doing the right thing? That is, why is “supporting our colleagues” a greater responsibility than protecting the hundreds of people who have been locked away, perhaps forever, in “the gulag of our time?”
The final question I have to ask is: is there anything at all that APA won’t do to preserve its access to those with power?
Your in disgust and shame,
Stephen Soldz
Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development
Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis
1581 Beacon St.
Brookline, MA 02446
ssoldz@bgsp.edu
4 comments June 12th, 2006