Psyche, Science, and Society

Psychologists, torture and the 2007 APS Conference keynote speaker

The membership of the APS should know something about the controversial invitation of Dr Gerald P. Koocher, Past President of the American Psychological Association (APA), to.be a keynote speaker at this year’s APS Conference in Brisbane.

The ABC’s Four Corners program about torture on June 4 and 11 reminded us that it should be of particular concern to psychologists: in the USA psychologists have had a long connection with military and CIA interrogation techniques; Behavioral Science Consultation. Team (B2SCT or “biscuiot teams; are involved in the interrogation of detainees in the so called ‘war on terror’, and these interrogation techniques amount to torture under the United Nations and indeed common sense definitions.

In an earlier ABC program, Lateline, on March 26, the US bioethicist Stephen Miles made the point that since psychiatrists (and other bodies representing health professionals in the USA) have come out against involvement in ‘interrogations’ like those carried out at Guantanamo, the US Defense Department now approves only of psychologists to participate in the organisation or management of interrogation teams. This is because the APA took the position that it’s OK to participate in such interrogations – something that has put it in opposition to other health professions, even if it recommends it to the US defence establishment.

The APA was at that time under the presidency of Dr Koocher, and he was actively involved in organising the APA’s response to the criticism in the media and by some psychologists that the involvement was contrary to the ‘do no harm’ principle underlying its professional code. Dr Koocher used his APA presidency to defuse criticism of the APA’s soft stance on psychologists’ involvement in interrogations that many rightly see as torture. Dr Koocher is criticised by a number of APA members, and also the wider media, because he refused to condemn the involvement, is seen as having helped the APA to exculpate psychologists involved in torture, and to prevent it from endorsing clear and unequivocal rejection of this involvement.

We urge any one who cares about the principle that psychologists should do no harm to raise the issue with their local APS, and to make their views on the issue known to the APS Conference Organising Committee.

Members of staff and graduate students, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, and regional psychologists
Wollongong, NSW

Response from Amanda Gordon, APS President

The issues concerning Professor Gerald Koocher came to the attention of the APS after he had been invited to be a keynote speaker at this year’s APS National Conference. Since learning about the controversy, we have planned a Public Forum at the Conference on Lessons from Guantanamo Bay: Ethical Issues for Psychologists Working in the Military, Intelligence and Detention Facilities, in which Professor Koocher has been invited to participate. We felt it was vitally important to provide members with the opportunity to hear first hand the APA’s position on these issues and to consider their application in the Australian context.

The APS, like the APA, condemns the use of torture and any psychological practice that is demeaning or serves to inflict suffering. Like the APA, the APS needs to have a debate about the ethics of psychologists working in sections of the military, in the Australian Federal Police and State police investigation units, and in immigration detention and related facilities. It needs to consider whether the APS Code of Ethics is sufficiently robust to be applied to members who work in those settings and whether the APS is in a position to dictate where and for whom its members will or will not work.

If you are attending this year’s Conference, I encourage you to come along and participate in the Public Forum in which these crucial issues will be aired.

Aug. 22, 2007, 8:07PM
Human wrongs
Psychologists have no place assisting interrogations at places such as Guantanamo Bay.

One of the mental health profession’s strengths is its grasp of ambiguity. Love and hate, rage and attraction, altruism and greed can coexist in the same person, and practitioners help clients accept that.

The Hippocratic oath, on the other hand, is simple. Do no harm. Based on this mandate, American psychologists should have nothing to do with the interrogation of terrorist suspects in prisons such as Guantanamo Bay.

Even when legal, the harsh techniques used in these centers include inflicting mental anguish; the very basis on which these prisoners are held — depriving them of both the protections afforded prisoners of war and the legal rights of criminal suspects — comprises a human rights violation. By helping interrogators in such prisons, psychologists are promoting, not healing, mental distress.

Unfortunately, the American Psychological Association last week concluded otherwise. To its credit, in a closely watched decision at their annual meeting, the group forbade members from “direct or indirect participation” in about 20 extreme interrogation techniques that have been used recently by U.S. military forces and intelligence agencies.

The association singled out waterboarding, exploiting detainees’ phobias and exposure to extreme temperatures.

But the resolution didn’t go far enough. Because psychologists are heavily involved in intelligence work — from giving advice to conducting studies — any ambiguity about their role in inflicting harm has special consequence.

The American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association ban their members from taking any part in prisoner interrogations. According to Leonard Rubenstein of the nonprofit Physicians for Human Rights, medical professionals’ ethics plainly ban them from using their expertise in any situation in which distress is purposely inflicted.

Though the American Psychological Association “unequivocally condemns torture,” its members may still help interrogators at Guantanamo and similar facilities.

Still worse, a number of exposés show that in recent years psychologists have been pivotal in creating some of the most abusive tactics in use since 9/11.

These extreme measures don’t even produce reliable evidence, many mental health and intelligence experts agree. Under duress, prisoners just say what they think interrogators want to hear. Experienced interrogators, on the other hand, build rapport and incentives, which do produce useful information. Psychologists are neither trained, nor necessary, for this non-therapeutic questioning process.

The worst argument for psychologists’ presence at interrogations comes from U.S. Army Col. Larry James, director of the psychology department of a military medical center.

“If we lose psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die,” he said at the APA meeting. Psychologists, James suggested, can rein or report overzealous violators.

Any interrogation system that teeters so close to atrocities needs more than a psychologist. It requires thorough overhaul and specific bans of the most extreme methods. The Department of Defense has listed such prohibitions. The CIA has not.

Torturing prisoners doesn’t produce reliable data. It does, however, violate human rights and strip Americans of the right to protest torture of its own men and women. Above all, it blurs our credibility as a democracy worth defending.

No American psychologist should have a part in an interrogation system with the potential to devolve into murder. No American should.