Psyche, Science, and Society

Monterey Bay Psychological Association: Psychologists have no role in military interrogations

June 18th, 2007

Here is op ed written by members of the Monterey Bay Psychological Association and published in the Santa Cruz (CA) Sentinel:

Jennifer Kaupp: Psychologists have no role in military interrogations

The Monterey Bay Psychological Association is among the outraged American Psychological Association members that Amy Goodman refers to in her opinion piece in the June 9 Sentinel. A year ago, we published a statement denouncing the role of psychologists in military interrogations. We have been in contact with like-minded psychologists, and will continue to voice our growing alarm over this situation. Many local psychologists and allied mental health professionals will join our colleagues in protest at the APA convention in San Francisco this August. We abide by the APA ethical standard to “first, do no harm” In this matter, the APA does not speak for all psychologists, and certainly not for us.

What follows is the position of the Monterey Bay Psychological Association on the role of psychologists in military interrogations.

The members of the Monterey Bay Psychological Association feel compelled to speak out, unequivocally and without further delay, against the unethical, immoral and illegal practices taking place in military prisons around the world. As psychologists, we would like to stand with all those who have protested the use of psychologists as consultants to torture, degradation, cruelty and/or inhumane treatment of military prisoners.

In its structured examination of the ethics of this practice, the American Psychological Association Psychological Ethics and National Security Task Force took a small step in the right direction. However, in the intervening time, we do not believe that the APA leadership has gone far enough in identifying the denouncing the misuse of psychological theory and practice in military interrogations and on rendition teams.

Both the APA and the CPA have asked for member psychologists’ input. We find that the response from the APA leadership does not represent us as psychologists, and is in fact detrimental to our profession. Within the context of ongoing media reports of cruel, inhumane and degrading practices used in military interrogations and on rendition teams, the APA’s focus on responsibilities to society rings hollow. To participate, even as consultants, in unethical practices under the guise of protecting the general social welfare is simply wrong. As an organization, the Monterey Bay Psychological Association believes that the APA Ethics Code is clear in its prohibition of the use of torture, and clear that psychologists should have no part in this aspect of military operations. Further, we recognize the dilemma of military psychologists forced to choose between their role as psychologists and their role as military officers.

We fervently believe that if we do not speak out against practices that violate human rights and dignity, we are complicit in those practices.

We would hope that the APA administration understands the fundamental admonition in the APA Ethics Code to “do no harm,” and continue to question their current interpretation.

This article was co-written by psychologist Jennifer Kaupp, president of the Monterey Bay Psychological Association; psychologist John Girvetz, the group’s former president; and Junell Silver, Diane Bridgeman and Meg Sandow, members of the MBPA Contemporary Issues in Psychology Forum.

Entry Filed under: APA, Guantanamo, Interrogation, Psychology, Torture, War Crimes