Psyche, Science, and Society

Coalition for an Ethical APA analyzes APA Board resolution on interrogations

July 28th, 2007

The Board of the American Psychological Association has proposed a Resolution that they wish to substitute for the resolution, introduced by Neil Altman, that would call a Moratorium on psychologist participation of so-called “enemy combatants.” The Board’s motion would ban participation in use of certain interrogation techniques, but allow overall participation to continue.

In response to the Board introducing this substitute resolution, the Coalition for an Ethical APA has issued a statement pointing to a number of loopholes in the resolution that need to be closed if it is to have any teeth. Here is the Coalition’s letter:

To Sharon Brehm, Stephen Behnke, The Board, the Council

The Coalition for an Ethical APA welcomes the recent statements by the APA Board to address our and the nation’s concerns about the role of psychologists in detainee abuses. Specifically, we welcome the APA’s condemnation of those abuses, the call for working together with governmental investigative bodies, and the proposal to clarify APA policy to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future.

We have studied the Board, Dr. Behnke and Rhea Farberman’s statements. As we understand it, the position of the APA has always been that psychologists have a role to play in interrogation, and that the role of psychologists should be limited to the study and practice of non-abusive modes of interrogation, based on rapport building, rather than on abuse or coercion. While we represent a wide array of psychologists who take different stances on this issue (many do not believe psychologists, as health professionals, should be involved in interrogations at all), we would like to be able to come together on an ethical stance that preserves the primarily responsibility of psychologists, which is to “do no harm.”

Therefore, we have studied the Board’s new proposed resolution in the hopes that, with certain specific changes, we could all come together to reassert an ethical position with regards to psychologists and interrogations. In this way we may all agree that we have done what is necessary to move psychology back into the forefront of ethics and service, where it belongs.

We accept that the goal of the new proposal is to permit psychologists to lend their expertise to detainee operations, while prohibiting them from participating directly or indirectly in the types of abuses that have brought shame to our profession and to our nation. To this end we have amended the Board’s proposal, in order to ensure that there is nothing vague or unclear in the wording and meaning of the resolution, that might prevent a psychologist interrogator, or a military superior from knowing precisely what a psychologist may or may not ethically do with regard to detainee or “enemy combatant” treatment and interrogation.

The areas where we believe that clarifications are necessary are the following:

1. At present it is not made clear that this resolution holds, even in the face of contradictory law, or regulation. It is necessary to state explicitly that this resolution is not limited by ethical standard 1.02, which allows psychologists to follow laws, regulations, or orders when these conflict with APA ethics.

2. At present the limitations apply to specific techniques, rather than to a type of unethical interrogation that these techniques exemplify. The standards against which techniques can be assessed as ethical or unethical must be explicitly stated.

3. At present, the casebook offers “guidelines” based on the international instruments cited in the 2006 Resolution Against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment. These need to be made enforcible standards, and the guarantees of the 5th 8th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution need to be added to these standards, as per the 2006 resolution.

4. At present the prohibited tactics, techniques and behaviors apply only to interrogations themselves. But since psychologists often consult on the environment detainees are kept in, as part of intelligence gathering preparation operations, these prohibitions must apply to all detainee and “enemy combatant” situations. Behaviors that are unethical remain unethical whether they are undertake as part of the interrogation process or the wider detention process.

5. At present, there is no prohibition against psychologists’ participating in detainee operations when detainees are kept in conditions that would be condemned as breaches of humane treatment, according to the instruments cited in the resolution. The resolution must address the psychologists’ ethical responsibilities when asked to work in such an environment.

6. At present the Resolution commends psychologists who take an ethical stand in the line of duty. We believe the APA owes active support to those in the military who are willing to risk their careers for the sake of principle.

Here is the Board’s Substitute Resolution:

Substitute Motion #2

(as originated by the Board of Directors)
That the Council of Representatives adopts the following resolution as APA policy:
Reaffirmation and Elaboration of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
WHEREAS the mission of the American Psychological Association is to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare through the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association;
WHEREAS the American Psychological Association is an accredited non-governmental organization at the United Nations and so is committed to promote and protect human rights in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
WHEREAS subjecting individuals to torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment for any reason in any context is wholly antithetical to these goals and purposes;
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association unequivocally condemns torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, for any and all purposes, including interrogation;
BE IT RESOLVED that the unequivocal condemnation includes an absolute prohibition against psychologists’ planning, designing, assisting or participating in any activities, including interrogations, which involve the use of torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes, but is not limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation during interrogation processes in: mock executions; water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation; sensory deprivation and over-stimulation; “hooding”; forced nakedness; sexual humiliation; cultural or religious humiliation; exploitation of phobias; stress positions; the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate; physical assault, including slapping and shaking; exposure to extreme heat or cold; induced hypothermia; mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information; isolation and sleep deprivation used in a manner that adversely affects an individual’s physical or mental health; or the threatened use of any of the above techniques to the individual or to members of the individual’s family;
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association calls on the United States government—including Congress, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency—to prohibit the use of these methods in all interrogations and that the American Psychological Association shall inform relevant parties with the United States government that psychologists are prohibited from participating in such methods;
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association encourages any individual with knowledge that a member of the Association has engaged in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the specific behaviors listed above, to provide this information to the Ethics Committee, and directs the Ethics Committee to take appropriate action based upon such information;
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological association commends those psychologists who have taken clear and unequivocal stands against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the line of duty, including stands against the specific behaviors listed above;
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association urges all psychologists with information relevant to the use of any method of interrogation constituting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment to inform their superiors of such knowledge, to inform the relevant office of inspector generals when appropriate, and to cooperate fully with all oversight activities, including hearings by the United States Congress and all branches of the United States government, to examine the perpetration of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment against individuals in United States custody, for the purpose of ensuring that no individual in the custody of the United States is subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;
BE IT RESOLVED that in writing a casebook and commentary, the APA Ethics Committee shall set forth guidelines for psychologists working in contexts of war and imprisonment that are consistent with international human rights instruments, as well as guidelines developed for health professionals, including but not limited to: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; The United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics Relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and The World Medical
Association Declaration of Tokyo: Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment;
BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association, in order to protect against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and in order to mitigate against the likelihood that unreliable and/or inaccurate information is entered into legal proceedings, calls upon United States legal systems to reject testimony that results from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

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