Anthony Marsella on psychologists, torture, and the need for decisive action
Anthony Marsella, President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, speaking for himself only, has written and sent around the following reflections in response to Thursday’s New York Times story on the secret Torture Memos:
. . . and what is the role of psychologists in developing these methods, training interrogators, and consulting in their use? Have psychologists been present and witnessed these acts? And if so, why haven’t they brought charges against violators as part of their professional ethics and human responsibilities.
And why hasn’t the APA condemned torture “unequivocally” in all forms, at all times, and in all places and made it clear that it does not support any psychologists participation in these brutal, inhuman, and ineffective violations of international human rights. There is no middle ground here!
And at the various secret Black Sites that still exist and that are funded and advised by our government - are psychologists from other nations taking confidence, comfort, and security from the equivocal APA position that has been offered. “Don’t worry,” they may be told, “USA psychologists do this and are free from prosecution” – blame it on your superiors’ orders” — “It is part of your job!” — Have we forgotten Nuremburg? Clearly, we have lost all moral authority as a nation, now we must ask if we as a science and profession have lost our moral authority
And why aren’t the members of the APA Board of Advisors, Council, and administration re-thinking and questioning the disastrous content and processes of the PENS Report — a report so filled with bias and favoritism toward the selective uses of torture that it stands as an embarrassment to our profession. Have we forgotten our psychology – never make a list of “don’ts” because it can never be “complete.” There will always be a way to get around it. I wonder if the present national administration says: “Well golly, water boarding wasn’t on the list – or we just missed it.”
I will now ask what so many psychologists are wondering about? Has there been cooperation and contractual relationships between APA and government military and security groups? Have there been meetings in which the APA has been asked to assist our government’s illegal policies and acts by giving the best science and best practices? If so, should not this be public?
We must make the APA PENS report public and subject to inquiry and debate? Have APA leaders served as consultants for pay? Please note, I do not question their right to do so, but rather their obligation to keep all psychologists informed of their potential bias in decision making as a result of receiving funds or other privileges. Isn’t this standard acceptable behavior? Conflict of interest is the issue. Did this occur on the PENS – is it occurring in other APA matters? And if there is a hesitancy to respond publicly, does this not raise doubts about their behavior in official capacities.
I ask these questions as a psychologist who is an APA Fellow, a winner of APA awards, a participant on numerous APA committees, and most of all a psychologist who is proud of his profession, science, colleagues, and the APA. Amidst all the controversy, I am so concerned for APA’s future and public image and professional stature that I am compelled to ask why we are responding with such qualified and restrictive statements that foster suspicion and doubt rather than promoting confidence and pride. It is not going to go away. It will be forever inscribed in history books and class discussions.
The whole world is watching the USA and the unfolding scandal of our nation’s uses of torture and the lies and deceit that continue to distort the reality of what has occurred. “Spin control” is the euphemism. Image management! Well, I must ask how well has this worked for our national government? Do we as psychologists, do we as an organization, do we as decent human beings not have a moral and legal obligation to speak out against this blatant assault on international human rights, laws, and civil expectations. We don’t need lists and we don’t need long statements of our principles. Just a simple sentence.
If we have free will — if we have the ability to choose — then let us use these gifts to speak out against torture in all settings, at all times, by all people. It is the greatest gift we can offer to our children, to torture victims, and to those who have died and our dying because of our silent complicity.
I will end my comments by enclosing two recent newspaper articles. [These articles, not included here, are Dan Froomkin: Torture, Continued and Democrats Want to See Interrogation Memo.] Thanks you for taking the time to read my comments and to reflect upon what I have said. The words are mine and not an official statement of any organization or group with which I am affiliated.
Add comment October 6th, 2007