The debate about psychologist’s participation in interrogations has taken a new turn with the release last week of the new report Educing Information: Interrogation Science and Art — Foundations for the Future. Phase I. Apparently the report was secretly published in December by the Intelligence Science Board but was recently leaked to the Federation of American Scientists, which publicly posted it. [UPDATE May 14, 2007: Charles Morgan claims in the comments that the group preparing this always intended to publish it. I have no reason to doubt him. Evidently I misinterpreted the Nature comment below that the report was leaked.]
It was compiled by a team of Advisers and a Government Experts Committee on Educing Information. Interestingly, these groups include three of the 10 members of the American Psychological Association’s Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security, the so-called PENS Task Force that contained six of nine voting members (there was a non-voting chair) from the military and intelligence communities; half of those six are involved here. The project was directed by Robert Fein, a member of the PENS Task Force.
The report give the Mission
“The Intelligence Science Board was chartered in August 2002 and advises the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and senior Intelligence Community leaders on emerging scientific and technical issues of special importance to the Intelligence Community. The mission of the Board is to provide the Intelligence Community with outside expert advice and unconventional thinking, early notice of advances in science and technology, insight into new applications of existing technology, and special studies that require skills or organizational approaches not resident within the Intelligence Community. The Board also creates linkages between the Intelligence Community and the scientific and technical communities.”
The PENS Task Force, therefore, was not just stacked with military and intelligence officials, but with extremely high-level officials. The choice of these individuals as the people to advise the APA on ethics clearly means that the decision regarding the Task Force’s recommendations was made in advance and members were chosen that would come up with the requisite recommendations. No wonder the Task Force membership was kept secret for as long as possible. There could not possibly be even a hint of legitimacy in a statement by this group that psychologist participation in interrogations was ethical.
It is far past time for the APA to set aside the PENS report, declaring it unacceptable due to the composition of the Task Force and the numerous procedural irregularities that occurred in the preparation of the report.
And the journal Nature today published an article online, which I reproduce here:
Interrogation comes under fire; Tough questioning tactics lack scientific foundation, intelligence agencies told
by Geoff Brumfiel
There is no scientific basis for current interrogation techniques, a US government-funded study has found. The report has stirred up controversy by calling for more research into the matter, angering many psychiatrists who believe such work is unethical.
The 374-page study on “educing information” was conducted by the Intelligence Science Board, an independent panel that advises the government’s intelligence agencies. The report concludes that “virtually none of the interrogation techniques used by US personnel over the past half-century have been subjected to scientific or systematic enquiry or evaluation”.
First published in December, the report became public last week after it was leaked to the Federation of American Scientists, a watchdog group based in Washington DC. Members of the study group declined to comment, citing the sensitive nature of their work.
The report provides a comprehensive review of military and law- enforcement interrogation techniques and finds numerous misperceptions, both within and outside professional circles. For example, it concludes that the belief that torture breaks down a subject’s resistance is without technical merit, as is the effectiveness of strategies such as sleep deprivation. It also finds that professional interrogators have as many erroneous beliefs as novices about how to use body language to spot liars, and concludes that current lie-detection technology is still highly unreliable.
In a controversial final chapter, the report calls for a systematic investigation of interrogation techniques to determine which yield the best information, and suggests reviewing the testimonials of former US prisoners of war to understand whether and how torture worked on them.
Finally, it calls for controlled studies on soldiers undergoing survival training and on college students willing to participate in “benign” research.
Such studies might be useful if they are conducted safely and ethically, says Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. He points out that regardless of scientists’ position on the matter, US soldiers and intelligence officers seem to be engaging in harsh interrogation practices in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, so they need to know what works, and what doesn’t. “We have not done very well in the absence of research,” he says.
Others disagree. “I doubt very much that any research could be done in a university setting or that any ethical person would do it,” says Alan Stone, a psychiatrist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Stone points out that interrogation is often designed to induce stress, and that raises a host of “intractable” ethical issues, such as how to gain consent from study subjects.
The fields of psychology and psychiatry are split over whether to carry out such work. In 2005, the American Psychological Association stated that psychologists could participate in interrogation, but not torture.
The American Psychiatric Association, meanwhile, has condemned any such work by its members. Gregg Bloche, a lawyer and psychiatrist at Georgetown University in Washington DC, says: “This underscores the need to make some rules.”
It should be noted that Educing Information is described on the title page as “Phase 1 Report.” Presumably Phase II will report on research studies on the most effective ways to “educe” information. Does waterboarding work better than threatening to kill family members? How effective is using a fear of spiders to break an individual? Should you allow no more than two hours of sleep a night, or is four ok, as stated in the new Armed Forces Manual on interrogations. Or, just perhaps, the good cop, bad cop routine is as effective as these more experimental techniques.
There is a real danger from “terrorists,” albeit an overblown one. Getting information is important, sometimes. But I, for one, do not trust the “intelligence community,” dirtied by involvement in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Baghram, extraordinary renditions, and the secret CIA prisons, to develop “ethical” and “scientifically-supported ways of educing information. By its nature, there will be no public oversight or control of such research as it will, undoubtedly, be classified. After all, we can’t let our enemies know what to expect when captured. And we certainly wouldn’t want other countries using our taxpayer-funded research to “educe information” from their rebels, or even, heaven forbid, from captured Americans.
Of course, the APA will be delighted to have yet another opportunity to demonstrate the importance of psychology to the “national security” effort. They’ll be hoping that those fat research grants will go to psychologists — and not to their arch-rivals, the psychiatrists — as the profession has demonstrated its loyalty.
The lack of scientific knowledge on how to “educe information” will, no doubt be trotted out by the APA leadership as yet another reason why psychologists must “engage” with the intelligence community by participating in interrogations. This call for “scientific eduction” will likely ignite the next phase of our battle against the use of psychological knowledge for human destruction rather than healing.
Sara Badaracco posted this comment that I have promoted:
Hi,
Pardon the intrusion, but your blog came up in a search for those who commented on Jumah Al-Dossari’s appeal to the American people against the torture he has suffered at Guantanamo Bay. I am trying to raise a direct response to that letter. I am looking for people who are also moved by this issue and might be looking for an outlet to do something. On my site, www.mercyinitiative.com, you can access a petition on Jumah’s behalf. Please spread the word.
Thanks. - Sara
On her website she gives this background:
My name is Sara, and I am a student of clinical psychology at West Chester University, Pennsylvania. As a drug and alcohol counselor for county detentions, I have witnessed firsthand the jaded thinking and subsequent dehumanizing power that comes of labeling people. So the situation at Guantánamo makes sense to me. In fact, the only distance between myself and the Gitmo guards is that my clients can sue me if I mistreat them, and they have full access to the court. It is scary to think this way. I only work with drug addicts. How would I be tempted to treat them if they were labeled terrorists?
I first heard about the plight of Iraqi detainees during the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004. Though the nation reeled in shock and horror, it was easy to write off such an incident as an anomaly. After all, America has always been a world leader in standing up for basic human dignity; it is easy to blame the torture and humiliation of our enemies on a few “bad apples.”
However, in November 2006, I stumbled across the name of Guantánamo Bay while doing research for a book I was writing. Perhaps like some of you readers, I was one of those that did not always keep up on the news, unless it was an issue that interested me. This did interest me. Disturbed by the connection between specific interrogation techniques used there and popular Medieval methods of torture, I determined to learn more about the shadowy detainment camps where “the worst of the worst” are secreted away from the public’s eye.
But instead of terrorists, I found pictures. Names. The faces of fathers with beautiful children, of sons and daughters and brothers. And the tales of systematic abuse that they faced, and still face, broke my heart. I think the treatment of the Muslim prisoners goes beyond “torture,” crossing into a deep violation of the human soul. Guilty or not guilty, these are human beings, and their despair, their pain, and the indignities they suffer at our hands are real.
My Jewish and Christian relatives suffered under the oppression of the Third Reich and the Soviet Gulag. I often wonder whether the common people of those countries were aware of the atrocities being committed, and if they did, what could have kept them silent. It is not enough that we shed a tear or become angry when we hear of evil going on in our own society. Democracy gives everyone a voice; therefore, each citizen is responsibility for his action or silence. In the words of Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”
But fighting terror with terror is like trying to put out fire with a flame-thrower. I do not believe that violence or coercion will be able to stop violence and coercion. Yet neither can we sit back and let the fire of hatred rage before our inaction. Instead, the only antidote for hatred is boundless mercy. Like water to flames, positive action in a spirit of love is the only thing that can quench the fires both of terrorism and of our own fearful hatred.
The quality of mercy is not strained;
it droppeth, as the gentle rain from heaven
upon the place beneath. It is twice bless’d:
it blesseth both him that gives and him that takes…
And earthly power doth show likest God’s
when mercy seasons justice.
-William Shakespeare, Portia in The Merchant of Venice.
I have no idea if her efforts will lead to anything. For example, will the letters she solicits get through US censorship? But I wish her well.
Gilbert Achcar, one of the most knowledgeable and reasonable analysts of the Iraq situation, is interviewed on The Iraq Debacle by Stephen R. Shalom and Chris Spannos on Znet. A small excerpt:
Q. How would you assess Muqtada al-Sadr?
GA. First of all, Muqtada al-Sadr is, of course, a Shiite Islamic fundamentalist and very much so — just look at the “moral order” his followers impose in areas under their control. However, that is not his main single characteristic because there are many other brands of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and, for instance, all other major components of the Shiite United Iraqi Coalition are also Islamic fundamentalist forces. In reality, the distinctive feature of Muqtada al-Sadr’s current is the fact that it is a populist brand of Islamic fundamentalism. His populism translates, on the one hand, into a hard-line opposition to the occupation reflecting the aspirations of broad sections of the masses, especially in Baghdad where the occupation is faced most directly, and in some areas of the south. On the other hand, Sadr’s populism is expressed in the fact that his movement tries to speak for the masses in their protest against their very poor living conditions. They speak and organize against the lack of public services, against all such shortcomings, while making sure to always blame the occupation — and not Maliki’s (or before him Jaafari’s) government — as bearing responsibility for the miserable conditions. It is through championing such demands as well as through its radical anti-occupation stance that the Sadrist current was able to build, in a matter of a couple of years, an impressive force. At the beginning of the occupation, in the first months, Sadr’s was a small group and some tended to believe that it would remain negligible. But after a few months, it started growing until you had the clashes with the occupation in 2004. The Sadrist current was already acknowledged to have become a serious threat to the occupation, and it continued to build itself after that period mainly through political means, achieving a very strong presence in the country. It is believed to be the most popular militant current among the Shiites.
The sectarian anti-Shiite attack in Samarra in February 2006, almost one year ago, was a major turning point in the Iraqi situation and very much precipitated the slide into sectarian war. The Mahdi Army, that is the militias that claim allegiance to Muqtada al-Sadr, or at least major sections of the Mahdi Army, took part in the sectarian retaliations that occurred in reaction to the Samarra attack. In the year elapsed since then, sections of the Mahdi Army have been deeply involved in the sectarian war. In the eyes of their community, they appear as defensive forces protecting the Shiite areas against incursions by Sunni sectarian forces. But in Arab Sunnis’ eyes, they appear as a Shiite sectarian force and are accused of conducting sectarian crimes, reprisals, mass killings and so on. To be sure, this has greatly affected the credibility that Sadr enjoyed in 2004 and 2005 as a non-sectarian, Iraqi Arab nationalist force opposed to the occupation. His image is now reduced to that of a sectarian Shiite force, an armed wing of the Shiite community. This, of course, has badly affected his own political project, which was to build his leadership as a cross-sectarian Iraqi one.
Read the whole interview for an incisive analysis of the current situation.
Dr. Scott Allen of Physicians for Human Rights and Dr. Stephen Xenakis have an Op Ed in todays’ Boston Globe describing the national scandal of over 100 detainees dead in US custody, including at least 43 homicides and 36 preventable deaths from enemy attacks. They also describe how the Bush administration has lowered the standards for medical care of detainees from previous standards requiring them to get care equal to that given US military personnel. The process of dehumanization and demonization characteristic of the “Global war on Terrorism” has proceeded in so many different ways:
Our duty to war detainees
By Scott Allen and Stephen Xenakis | January 22, 2007
AT LEAST 112 detainees have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2002 and 2005, according to military documents and press reports. Many of these deaths appear to have been preventable. Given the public record of detainee abuses and history of weakened administration support of detainee rights, the possibility of preventable deaths in US custody warrants careful review.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates should promptly authorize an independent investigation of possible military negligence and take action to ensure that the United States is living up to its obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
No such wide-ranging and independent inquiry has occurred. Recently, one of us published the most comprehensive, peer-reviewed study of the reported causes of these fatalities in Medscape General Medicine, finding that the leading causes of detainee death were homicide (43 cases) and enemy mortar attacks (36 cases).
According to the study, at least 11 of the 43 homicide cases involved blunt trauma or asphyxiation. At least three of the homicides reported have resulted in murder charges. Another three have resulted in charges of voluntary manslaughter. The 36 deaths caused by enemy mortar attacks, many of which occurred at Abu Ghraib, suggest clear violations of Geneva prohibitions against placing detainees in range of enemy attack.
Also, the study identified 20 deaths that were attributed to natural causes, and nine were listed as having an unknown cause of death. A group of eight deaths due to natural causes occurred in Iraq in August 2003, raising urgent questions about the conditions of confinement and the adequacy and availability of medical care. Given the difficulty in getting information on the deaths of detainees in US custody, and given the sensitivity of the subject, we believe this review is incomplete.
As physicians, we believe that these findings cast doubt on whether our colleagues in the US military caring for detainees are receiving the direction and resources they need to do their job effectively. Health professionals have professional ethical obligations to preserve and protect the lives of their patients. Congress must ensure that our military medical professionals are equipped and supported to accomplish their mission honorably.
America’s military medical corps has long been regarded as the most professional and ethical military medical service in the world. As of five years ago, military regulations instructed all uniformed medical personnel to provide medical care to detainees of an equal standard as that received by US soldiers.
After Sept. 11, however, the Pentagon detached the standard of detainee medical care from the standard of care for US personnel deployed in combat theaters. Also, planning for the security and provision of healthcare for detainees taken into custody early on in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts was grossly inadequate, as is tragically evident from incidents at Abu Ghraib, Sheberghan prison in Afghanistan, and other US detention centers.
The responsibility for the conduct of the medics at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib rests with the senior leadership of the medical departments and the Pentagon. Since the onset of combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the leadership has faced difficult challenges regarding the appropriate conduct of medics in the treatment of detainees, the way medics handle casualties and deaths of prisoners, and the response to hunger strikes and other medical emergencies in the detention facilities.
The duty and authority for the relevant policies and practices can be neither deferred nor sidestepped. An independent inquiry into detainee deaths is the first step toward ensuring that commanders and policy makers are held accountable for how they treat detainees.
Dr. Scott Allen is a Medicine as Profession Fellow at Physicians for Human Rights. Dr. Stephen Xenakis, a practicing psychiatrist and retired brigadier general, is the former commander of the US Army’s Southeast Medical Command.
Young director Ava Lowery has created a video to encourage people to attend the antiwar rally this Saturday in Washington, D.C. In her YouTube description she says:
Over 3,046 U.S. Troops have died in Iraq. Thousands more have been wounded and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. We already know how this war must end. Now it’s time for us to stand up and do something! Join us on the streets of DC this Saturday, January 27th, to tell the new Congress: Act NOW to bring the troops home! We the people have the power to control our country’s path. It’s up to use to use that power.
How This Must End
Remember as you watch it that there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi scenes like the American ones shown here.
Paul Krugman takes on the Decider’s disgusting health insurance “reform” plan, which taxes workers with good insurance to fund the well-off who choose not to have insurance. Not mentioned in Krugman’s critique is that tax breaks do not help poor people very much, not only because their tax rate is low anyway, but also because they don’t have the cash to put out all year in hopes of a refund the next spring.
Gold-Plated Indifference
by Paul Krugman
President Bush’s Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow’s State of the Union address. Mr. Bush’s proposal won’t go anywhere. But it’s still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers.
On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.”
Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it’s like to be uninsured.
Going without health insurance isn’t like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It’s a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don’t need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.
Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can’t afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.
Of those uninsured who aren’t low-income, many can’t get coverage because of pre-existing conditions — everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won’t solve their problem.
The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we’re least concerned about — affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process — whaddya know — giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break.
While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase — not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.”
Again, wow. No economic analysis I’m aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul’s premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have “gold plated” health coverage please raise their hands?
According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we’re not talking about the wealthy; we’re talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.
What’s driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance — that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket.
The administration also believes, for some reason, that people should be pushed out of employment-based health insurance — admittedly a deeply flawed system — into the individual insurance market, which is a disaster on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling policies to people who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums in the individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies dedicated to weeding out “high risk” applicants — and keeping them uninsured.
I’m somewhat skeptical about health care plans, like that proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that propose covering gaps in the health insurance market with a series of patches, such as requiring that insurers offer policies to everyone at the same rate. But at least the authors of these plans are trying to help those most in need, and recognize that the market needs fixing.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is still peddling the fantasy that the free market, with a little help from tax cuts, solves all problems.
What’s really striking about Mr. Bush’s remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing “incentives” to buy insurance, the sneering description of good coverage as “gold plated,” is right-wing think-tank jargon. In the past Mr. Bush’s speechwriters might have found less offensive language; now, they’re not even trying to hide his fundamental indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Universal Health Coverage Attracts New Support. Of course, this support is for a corporate-dominated private insurance system that creates a new entitlement program for the nations greediest insurance companies while doing little to reduce the costs of healthcare.
During the campaign for the 2008 Presidency of the American Psychological Association the candidates were asked a series of questions, based on the most frequent submissions from members. One of these questions concerned APA policy toward psychologist participation in coercive interrogations. The question was:
Do you think APA should have an explicit policy, including sanctions, against members enabling/participating in/advising about the coercive interrogation of prisoners/enemy combatants?
The good news is that all five candidates tried to appear be against participation in coercive interrogations. This suggests that all these candidates assumed that the APA membership is clearly against psychologist participation in coercive interrogations.
However, two of the candidates — Stephen Ragusea and James Bray — subtly changed the topic to whether APA was against “torture,” a policy long adopted by APA and reiterated in their 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As usual, the devil, and in this case it is a real devil, is in the details. The question is what actually is going on at Guantanamo and elsewhere and whether it falls under the terms of the Resolution. According to the UN Committee on Torture, unlimited detention without trial is itself an instance of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment:
The Committee, noting that detaining persons indefinitely without charge, constitutes per se a violation of the Convention, is concerned that detainees are held for protracted periods at Guantánamo Bay, without sufficient legal safeguards and without judicial assessment of the justification for their detention.
In contrast, the APA has used fine-sounding its Resolution Against Torture as a fig leaf to cover psychologist participation in coercive interrogations while resolutely refusing to conduct any kind of investigation of what psychologists actually are doing to detainees.
Thus, the details matter greatly, and Ragusea’s and Bray’s good-sounding but equivocal responses would have had the effect of allowing the status quo of psychologist participation in abusive interrogations to have continued unhindered. What is needed now is not fine-sounding words against “torture,” that sound like mom and apple pie, but clear, unequivocal action against the continuing participation of psychologists in the the insult to human rights that occurs daily in Guantanamo and numerous other detention centers around the world.
One of the advocates of a strong, unequivocal approach, Alan Kazdin, won the election and is now President-Elect, set to take the Presidency in January 2008. Hopefully the APA membership will have exerted so much pressure that the issue of psychologist participation in coercive interrogations will be settled by then. But if not, we must be ready to keep the pressure on Dr. Kazdin to make sure he keeps his promises as he becomes part of the APA leadership and is subject to the multiple pressures that will undoubtedly be exerted upon him to “become reasonable” and not threaten the numerous ties between the APA and the military and intelligence communities.
It is encouraging that, during the campaign, Dr. Kazdin responded to an email from me on this issue by stating:
I agree with you. We needed swifter an unequivocal action. Among the issues, the organization of APA, i.e., how it is structured, can dilute action and swift action and we look like we are not doing much. I am eager to take a stronger position–there is only one moral ground here and it hurts us not to lead.
I am eager in hearing more from you in relation to this issue but also other issues. Not so clear what a president can do at APA, but I have the energy to try to make a difference and to bring issues to the fore that will genuinely help people world wide.
An APA President may not be able to accomplish much on his own. We have to make sure that President Kazdin has an energized membership behind him on this issue.
Here are the responses of the five candidates:
“Dr. Pauline Wallin: Now onto our last question and I want to thank the audience who is with us and again the recording will be posted on the APA website and you will get notification of that. Our last question is quite complex so please listen: Do you think APA should have an explicit policy, including sanctions, against members enabling/participating in/advising about the coercive interrogation of prisoners/enemy combatants? Dr. Ragusea.
Dr. Stephen Ragusea: The short answer is absolutely yes. I think that APA tried to provide a complex answer to this issue a few months ago and got ourselves in a public relations mess even though our heart and minds were in the right place. People who are listening should know that in August, at the Convention, the Council Representatives passed a very complex resolution addressing this issue that essentially clearly established that APA is against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments or punishment. I think that we need to send as clear and concise a message as we can to the world that we are against these things. I think the resolution that was passed by the Council should become integrated with our ethical standards and people who violate that ethical standard as well as all the other ethical standards have steps that are taken against them to address that violation of our standards. This is a critically important issue. Psychology should have nothing to do with torture. We should be seen as the antithesis, the antonym to it, not in anyway synonymous with the concept of torture. Thank you.
Dr. Pauline Wallin: Thank you, Dr. Ragusea. Dr. Bingham, do you think APA should have an explicit policy, including sanctions, against members enabling/participating in/advising about the coercive interrogation of prisoners/enemy combatants?
Dr. Rosie Phillips Bingham: Yes, psychologists should not be engaged in any kind of coercive interrogation. We are a healing science and practice profession. We should not be participating in and/or advising in anyway coercive practices. In fact, we should be issuing statements on peace. We should be telling people how to get along and how to help each other. We should make even stronger the resolution that we passed. And I stood on Council. We should make that even stronger. We need to stand up and stand out and be against torture. We do need to go through our ethical process and right now there are members of the division of social justice working on some wording to offer up to the membership to put into our ethics code and I firmly believe that what we must do then is follow the ethics code. We can’t sanction without having it in the code. And do you know the other thing I absolutely believe is that the threat of sanctions should not be the thing that helps us live up to what we believe in as psychologists. We ought to be well beyond a sanction. We really need to take seriously our call to do no harm. Psychologists must do no harm and beyond that we must light the way to peace.
Dr. Pauline Wallin: Thank you, Dr. Bingham. Dr. Bray, do you think APA should have an explicit policy, including sanctions, against members enabling/participating in/advising about the coercive interrogation of prisoners/enemy combatants?
Dr. James Bray: Yes, the APA has a long history of being on record against this as we have already heard APA Council reaffirmed this during the August 2006 meeting and I strongly support this policy. As a family psychologist, we know that from both research and practice that coercive behavior is destructive and does not lead to good outcomes for any human being. It’s my belief that psychologists should be about enhancing people’s lives and not tearing them down and we should take a strong stance about this issue. This question exemplifies some of the important social policies work that psychologists engage in. Through the work of the Public Education Directorate at APA, divisions like the division for social justice and state associations, we need to continue to provide research based support for changes in social policy that improve the health and well-being of our nation and I look forward to doing that as APA president and I thank you for hanging in there and listening us.
Dr. Pauline Wallin: Thank you Dr. Bray. Dr. Kazdin, do you think APA should have an explicit policy, including sanctions, against members enabling/participating in/advising about the coercive interrogation of prisoners/enemy combatants?
Dr. Alan Kazdin: I think that APA definitely should have a policy and this is in keeping with our long history of concern for human rights. The violations in the world in general that are going on are apart from torture are so extensive that we need to get this policy worked out and handle the abuse of women world wide, the abuse of children world wide. This is a part of a larger issue for me. We need a policy and, of course, we need sanctions as part of our ethical codes as well. I would like to see APA have such a policy that it’s a guideline that is really adopted by other organizations. The APA Publication Manual, as it were, of the ethical guidelines moving to a higher level and a higher plain. I think we need to really integrate this and take an unequivocal look on what we are doing. At the same time, there is more we should do on the other side, as Dr. Bingham said, which is a stronger commitment to peace, a stronger commitment to non-coercion. What can we do to help achieve world-wide peace, national goals that do not involve coercion at all and this is what psychology can do to fill out the other side of this. Thank you.
Dr. Pauline Wallin: And finally, Dr. Newcombe, do you think APA should have an explicit policy, including sanctions, against members enabling/participating in/advising about the coercive interrogation of prisoners/enemy combatants?
Dr. Nora Newcombe: Yes. Some time ago Mike Dukakis got himself in a lot of trouble by saying he was a card carrying member of the ACLU, but I am proud to say, and I think I won’t get in trouble with this audience, that I have been for many years a card carrying member of Amnesty International and I was actually quite shocked to find that this was a matter of any kind of debate within APA and to realize that over the winter there was an APA taskforce that actually did not recommend what I considered to be a strong enough position for the APA, so I was very heartened to hear and to read what came out of Council this past August. Even so I think there is a remaining area of ambiguity that concerns the issue of what extent we’re subscribing to the current laws and practices in the United States which I consider far too weak and far too lenient and far too allowing of torture. But rather, we could instead subject ourselves to the commandments of the Geneva Convention and the international bodies that regulate this. I think that we should unequivocally go with the international standards. I was quite dismayed actually to see in the Council resolution any mention of the McCain amendment and so forth, all of that is too weak in my opinion.”
UPDATE 1-22-2007 5:00PM EDT: Stephen Ragusea sent the following to me:
I did not try to “subtly” change the topic. In an imperfect transcript, I may be seen as responding as best as possible during a late night conference call. I don’t think that psychologists should be involved in either torture or interrogation and all my written statements for years have been both consistent and clear. And furthermore, what I said that night is: “Psychology should have nothing to do with torture. We should be seen as the antithesis, the antonym to it, not in anyway synonymous with the concept of torture.” I think that is a very strong, clear position. I’m appalled that my response is being distorted in this manner. If Stephen Soldz needed clarification of my position, I wish he would have asked for it rather than defaming my name. Sometimes social responsibility and personal responsibility go hand in hand.
If there’s any way you can post this response, I’d appreciate it.
I’m glad to hear that I was wrong and that he doesn’t “think that psychologists should be involved in either torture or interrogation.” As my comments indicates, being against “torture” isn”t enough. I’m glad that Dr. Ragusea is against participations in interrogations. This was not clear from his comments. I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.
For readers in Massachusetts, I will be speaking at 7:00 PM at the Brookline Public Library in Coolidge Corner (31 Pleasant Street) on Thursday January 25th on Guantanamo and Torture: Considering Our National Nightmare. Speaking with me will be Jeff Gleason:
Jeff Gleason is a litigator in the Boston office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”). For more than two years, Jeff and several of his colleagues at WilmerHale have represented six men imprisoned at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the suit filed on their clients behalf, Boumediene v. Bush, et al. In the course of the WilmerHale team’s representation, Jeff has participated in briefing and preparation for oral argument at both the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has also assisted with diplomatic efforts to secure justice for his clients. In August, Jeff had the opportunity to visit his clients at Guantanamo.
This spring, Jeff will teach an undergraduate class, Understanding Guantanamo, at Tufts University’s Ex College.
My talk will focus on the role of psychologists in the Guantanamo interrogation process and our attempts to force the American Psychological Association to come out against this participation.
The meeting is sponsored by Brookline PeaceWorks [peace@texnology.com] and will include a Discussion led by Joan Ecklein of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and a UMass Professor emeritus.
The talk will be preceded by a Fundraising Dinner for the Center for Constitutional Righrs at Fugakyu Restaurant 1280 Beacon St., Brookline. You can meet the speakers there. [RSVP required so they can make reservations.]
Terror suspect was terrorized in a Navy brig
BY FRED GRIMM
The accused was held in extreme isolation for 1,307 days. Held in a nine-by-seven-foot cell. The only window blacked out. He was the lone prisoner on the two-tier cellblock. He was given food through a slot in the door. He slept on a steel mattress. No reading material. No calendar. No clock. Nothing to connect him to the outside world.
But it was the short trip down the hallway for a dental examination that captured the utter isolation and sensory deprivation inflicted on Jose Padilla during his 3 ½ years in the Navy brig at Charleston, S.C.
Helmeted guards, their faces obscured behind dark plastic visors, manacled his hands and feet through slots in his cell door. They covered his ears with sound-canceling headphones, covered his eyes with blacked-out goggles.
Padilla, mind you, has been described by his jailers as docile “as a piece of furniture.”
At that point, after months of a dehumanizing interrogation regime, any useful information had long been squeezed from him.
LIVED IN BROWARD
The prosecution of Jose Padilla, an American citizen and a former resident of Broward County held as an enemy combatant, involves some of the defining legal issues of our time. His case is about the reach of executive power, the suspension of habeas corpus, about how long an American citizen can be held without charges. It is about validity of information obtained by coercion and torture.
But Padilla’s dental visit — photos of the exercise are in the federal court files — reach beyond the legal questions. It has the look of gratuitous cruelty.
The treatment of an American citizen in pretrial detention seemed to be taken from the imaginings of Kafka. It appeared to be sensory deprivation just for the hell of it.
Jose Padilla, you’ll remember, was arrested in Chicago in 2002 with considerable fanfare as the homegrown al Qaeda operative who planned to set off radioactive dirty bombs in American cities. He was a former Chicago gangbanger who converted to Islam in jail and worshiped in a Broward mosque before his alleged descent into terrorism.
He was originally held, without criminal charges, as an enemy combatant. But that changed in 2005. To avoid a Supreme Court review, the government charged Padilla in federal court. Not as the celebrated dirty bomber but as a conspirator in some 1990s Islamic extremist plots in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya.
But Padilla’s prosecution may have been undermined by his jailers. His lawyers claim their client, who was not allowed to see an attorney for his first two years in confinement, was subjected to an extreme regime of physical stress, sleep deprivation, sensory tricks involving loud noises, bright lights and foul odors and was drugged with LSD — all designed to break him mentally. It may have worked too well.
A BROKEN MAN
His lawyers claim Padilla — now held in Miami — has become so mentally addled, so timid that he is afraid to help in his own defense. They cite Dr. Angela Hegarty, director of forensic psychiatry at the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center in Queens, N.Y., who examined Padilla for a total of 22 hours.
She concluded: “It is my opinion that as the result of his experiences during his detention and interrogation, Mr. Padilla does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation.”
On Friday, the federal judge postponed Padilla’s trial from Jan. 22 to April 16 to allow the prosecution time to arrange its own examination of Padilla’s mental state.
In light of the Padilla case, the rest of us might take the extra time to ponder our own post-9/11 psychological state.