Here is an article on the APA-interrogations issue from the Swedish Journal of Psychology. Along with this the Journal also published responses to questions posed to the APA and to myself. I have posted the three pieces. The original of all three pieces, in Swedish and English is available as a pdf here; all three can also be accessed in html from here.
U.S. psychologists accused of participating in torture: A Swedish view
by Eva Brita Järnefors
U.S. psychologists have developed brutal interrogation methods that have been used at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo, in prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in secret prisons run by the CIA. The fact that psychologists have also taught these techniques and participated in interrogations of detainees has created deep divisions among the members of the American Psychological Association, APA.
We have all seen the brutal photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which were widely publicized in April, 2004. Among other things, the pictures showed blindfolded, naked prisoners forced to form human pyramids, while laughing prison guards used dogs to scare them.
Since then, more information has leaked in the U.S. press concerning abuse and torture in U.S. prisons for suspected terrorists. This information shows that the methods used at Abu Ghraib formed part of a policy that had been sanctioned at the highest political level. U.S. president George W. Bush has declared these prisoners to be “unlawful combatants,” as opposed to “lawful combatants,” and maintains that they therefore cannot be counted as prisoners of war and thus are not covered by the rules of international law. On December 2, 2002, former U.S. secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld signed a document allowing the use of a number of violent methods in connection with interrogations at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay.
Information regarding the involvement of U.S. psychologists in these torture practices has also leaked to the media and subsequently been officially confirmed. On May 18, 2007, the U.S. Department of Defense declassified a comprehensive investigation into brutal prisoner abuse, the so-called OIG Review. (1) The report was produced in August, 2006, but was not made public until a year later. This report shows that psychologists have played a leading role in the development and introduction of the brutal interrogation methods – methods that have been used at Guantánamo, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in secret CIA prisons, so-called “black sites,” located in a number of different countries.
The brutal treatment of suspected terrorists has affected a number of professional groups in the United States, and their respective professional organizations have decided that their members are not allowed to participate in interrogations of suspected terrorists. Decisions to that effect have been made by the professional organizations of medical doctors, nurses, anthropologists, and translators. The American Psychological Association, APA, is the only major professional organization of health workers that has not completely distanced itself from these interrogations.
A movement of opposition has emerged within APA against the continued participation of psychologists in these interrogations. Steven Reisner, PhD, a psychologist and psychoanalyst, explained on the television/radio program Democracy Now! why psychologists should not take part in interrogations: “I think, without any question, it is clear that if a psychologist participates in the interrogations or supervises the interrogations or supervises the conditions in an arena where there are no human rights and no due process, that that psychologist is contributing to the violation of human rights. And so, there should be an absolute prohibition.” (2)
Some members of APA have left the organization in protest. One of them is psychologist and writer Mary Pipher, PhD. At the same time as she resigned her membership, she also returned the award she had been given by APA for her books. Three of her books, among them Reviving Ophelia, have been New York Times bestsellers. In her letter to then APA president Sharon Brehm, she writes that: “I do not want an award from an organization that sanctions its members’ participation in the enhanced interrogations at CIA Black Sites and at Guantánamo,” and continues: “The behavior of psychologists on these enhanced interrogation teams violates our own Code of Ethics (2002) in which we pledge to respect the dignity and worth of all people, with special responsibility towards the most vulnerable. I consider prisoners in secret CIA-run facilities with no right of habeas corpus or access to attorneys, family or media to be highly vulnerable. I also believe that when any of us are degraded, all of human life is degraded.” (3)
The investigation carried out by the Department of Defense corroborates earlier reports in the press concerning the use of the SERE program (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) against suspected terrorists. The official purpose behind this program is to train U.S. military personnel in methods of avoiding capture and, in case they do get captured, of avoiding breakdown following torture in the form of, e.g., waterboarding and protracted isolation. Since 2002, the reverse purpose has been to train U.S. military personnel in the use of these torture methods so as to enable them to practice them themselves. The authority responsible for the SERE program is the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, which is part of the Department of Defense.
The work of developing brutal interrogation methods began in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The objective was to elicit information from captured suspected terrorists regarding the planning that had preceded the attacks. The torture methods have been used both to break down prisoners mentally, and to deter others from engaging in terrorism, but also as a political demonstration of power.
Two psychologists, James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, have been identified by the U.S. press as the primary authors behind the reverse SERE program of brutal interrogation methods. They were originally involved in work with SERE at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where U.S. Special Forces are trained. Following September 11, 2001, they also did contract work for the CIA and in due course set up their own consulting firm, Mitchell, Jessen, and Associates, in Spokane, Washington, employing some 120 personnel. Together they developed the interrogation techniques, trained military personnel in SERE courses, and took part in interrogations at various prison sites under the supervision of the CIA. The official responsible for their CIA-related activities during the years 2001-2003 was psychologist R Scott Shumat, chief psychologist at the CIA Counter Terrorism Center at Fort Bragg. (4, 5)
The interrogation techniques applied involve both physical and psychological abuse. Methods that have been described include protracted isolation and extreme sensory deprivation, long periods of forced insomnia, constant loud sounds and/or strong light, use of hoods, forced nudity, stressful body positions, use of dogs to intimidate and threaten, exploitation of phobias, sexual and cultural humiliation, physical abuse, extreme heat (hyperthermia) which may result in alterations of consciousness and brain damage, or extreme cold (hypothermia) which may result in states of confusion and loss of consciousness, threats to hurt or kill, and waterboarding, a method that exposes the prisoner to simulated drowning. (1, 4)
These interrogation methods are not allowed by the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit both physical and psychological torture and abuse. Personnel that have gone through the SERE training program have testified that prisoners who were subjected to the above-mentioned treatments were later found to suffer from depression, psychosis, and suicidal ideation. At Guantánamo, several detainees have made suicide attempts and some have succeeded in taking their lives. (7, 8 )
The SERE tactics came to Guantánamo in 2002. The authors of the DoD review write that a SERE psychologist conference was held at Fort Bragg on September 16 of that year. The participants consisted of interrogation personnel and the Army Behavioral Science Consultation Team from Guantánamo. The latter team includes psychologists and health professionals. One of the hosts of the conference was psychologist Colonel Morgan Banks. He was the second psychologist in command of training and supervision of all SERE psychologists in the U.S. Army.
The review states further: “The JTF-170 [i.e., Guantánamo] personnel understood that they were to become familiar with SERE training and be capable of determining which SERE information and techniques might be useful in interrogations at Guantánamo. Guantánamo Behavioral Science Consultation Team personnel understood that they were to review documentation and standard operating procedures for SERE training in developing the standard operating procedure for the JTF-170… .”
The OIG investigators add: “Counterresistance techniques were introduced because personnel believed that interrogation methods used were no longer effective in obtaining useful information from some detainees.”
These brutal interrogation methods were then put to use in Iraq and Afghanistan as well.
The OIG investigators hold the SERE psychologists responsible for the use of physical and psychological coercive methods and recommend that the use of these methods be discontinued.
In 2005, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported that brutal interrogations were being held at Guantánamo and that psychologists were involved in these. APA responded by setting up a committee of psychologists that was assigned the task of reviewing the organization’s ethical guidelines concerning torture. The group was given the name of Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security, PENS. This group proposed clarifications of the ethical guidelines, but it did not question the continued participation of psychologists in the interrogations.
A barrage of criticism was directed against this Task Force by members of APA. Psychologist Jean Maria Arrigo, who had been a member of PENS, later distanced herself from it. She told Vanity Fair about the work carried out by the group. Among other things, critics deplored the fact that six out of nine of the group’s members with voting rights came from military organizations or from the CIA, and that most had some form of connection to Guantánamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. (4, 5)
Three psychologist members of the APA Task Force held leading positions within SERE when the organization shifted to the reverse purpose of training military personnel in interrogation techniques. One the three was SERE psychologist Colonel Morgan Banks, mentioned above. The Task Force also included Colonel Larry James who, in January, 2003, was engaged as chief psychologist for the Joint Intelligence Group at Guantánamo. The third SERE psychologist on the Task Force was Captain Bryce Lefever. In 2002, he trained interrogation personnel in Afghanistan. Yet another psychologist member of PENS was R. Scott Shumate, who as mentioned earlier was responsible for the activities of SERE psychologists Mitchell and Jessen. The Peace Psychology Division of the APA writes that he has “interviewed many renowned individuals associated with various terrorist networks.” (6, 8 )
Two months prior to the annual APA convention on August 18, 2007, in San Francisco, the Department of Defense published the OIG report. A number of psychological associations and renowned psychologists then signed an open letter to APA president Sharon Brehm. In the letter, they called upon her to support a resolution demanding an immediate end to psychologists’ participation in military interrogations. The initiators of the open letter were psychologists and psychoanalysts Stephen Soldz and Steven Reisner. Members of APA demonstrated and argued for a comprehensive ban on psychologists’ participation in interrogations, but their resolution was rejected. (9)
The Board of the APA put forward its own resolution, in which the organization takes a stand against torture and other inhumane and humiliating treatments or punishments of detainees. In the resolution, nineteen different methods are defined as unethical interrogation techniques. The text refers to the APA Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was passed in 2006. (10) Similarly worded paragraphs are to be found in the U.S. Constitution and in the United Nations Torture Convention. APA adds that torture and other forms of cruel treatment are likely to produce unreliable and/or false information.
On its web site, APA has published a number of “frequently asked questions” concerning the organization’s stance in regard to the role of psychologists and the use of torture and violence during interrogations. Here, it says that members of APA have a professional and moral responsibility to try to stop abuse and to report incidents of violence to the appropriate authorities. The APA Ethics Committee “will investigate, under well-established procedures, any allegation that a member has violated APA’s strict prohibition against engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or reporting relevant information.”
As to why APA has not gone so far as to prohibit psychologists from taking part in military interrogations, the organization states: “APA has affirmed that psychology has a vital role to play in promoting the use of ethical interrogations to safeguard the welfare of detainees and facilitate communications with them.” (11)
The cooperation between U.S. psychologists and the U.S. military and intelligence services began as early as the 1940s. Psychologists were involved in developing interrogation techniques in Vietnam and other countries during the 1960s, and also in a number of countries in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s. The ties between APA and the U.S. military are traditionally strong. APA, which is the biggest psychologist organization in the world, counts 148,000 members. The members join different APA societies that are organized according to professional fields. The 19th such subdivision, the Society for Military Psychology, was formed in 1945.
The issue of torture has recently gained prominence at the highest political level. Democrats in the U.S. Senate have requested a public inquiry after it surfaced that the CIA had destroyed videotapes from two interrogations of members of al Qaeda. Democratic senators had previously requested to see these recordings. U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has been forced to order an investigation into the matter. The CIA is suspected of concealing and withholding evidence showing, among other things, that waterboarding has been used during the interrogations. The tapes were recorded in 2002 and destroyed in 2005. One of the al Qaeda prisoners is said to be Aby Zubaydah. (12)
The day after the news about the videotapes broke, Stephen Soldz wrote a commentary in which he called attention to the probable fact that Abu Zubaydah, according to journalist Katherine Eban in Vanity Fair, was tortured by psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen. (13)
The discussions within APA regarding whether or not psychologists should take part in military interrogations, will continue. At the end of 2007, several psychology departments at U.S. colleges and universities had adopted resolutions criticizing APA’s stance on the matter.
Eva Brita Järnefors
Translated by Tor Wennerberg
References:
1) Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse (18 maj, 2007) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Department of Defense
2) Goodman, A (August 17, 2007) Dissident Members Challenge American Psychological Association on Role in CIA Interrogation, Torture, Democracy Now!
3) Pipher, M: Letter to APA: www.ethicalapa.com
4) Benjamin, M (June 21, 2007) “The CIA’s torture teachers,” www.salon.com
5) Eban, K (July17, 2007) Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair
6) Soldz, S, Reisner, S, Olson, B (June 7, 2007) “A Q &A on Psychologists and Torture,” Counter Punch.
7) (January 25, 2005) “23 Detainees Attempted Suicide in Protest at Base, Military Says,” New York Times.
8 ) Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence, Peace Psychology Division 48 of the APA, www.apa.org/about/division
9) Soldz, S, m fl (2007) “Open letter to the President of the American Psychological Association,” ZNet, www.ipetitions.com/petition/Brehm
10) www.apa.org/governance/resolutions
11) www.apa.org/releases
12) Shane, S, Mazzetti, M (December 30, 2007) “Tapes by CIA Lived and Died to Save Image,” New York Times.
13) Soldz, S (December 7, 2007) “Did destroyed CIA tapes show psychologists torturing? Did APA dodge a bullet?” OpEdNews.
Eva Brita Järnefors is a journalist and the chief editor of the Swedish Journal of Psychology. She has worked at the journal for 19 years. The journal belong to the Swedish Psychological Association.
February 19th, 2008
Here are my responses to questions posed by Eva Brita Järnefors , Editor of the Swedish Journal of Psychology.
As my original responses were considerably longer, and certain nuances got lost in the otherwise fine editing, I will post the original responses after the published version.
This is part of a set of articles, together with U.S. psychologists accused of participating in torture by Eva Brita Järnefors and “We want to see the documents of the `enhanced´ interrogation techniques” by Rea Farberman, the Executive Director for Communications at the American Psychological Association. I encourage you to read them all. The original of all three pieces, in Swedish and English is available as a pdf here; all three can also be accessed in html from here.
“That psychologists have prevented abuse against detainees is a fantasy”
-If one truly wants to promote ethical interrogations, transparency is the solution, says Dr Stephen Soldz, psychologist, psychoanalyst and Professor at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He is one of the proponents for change who want APA to prohibit psychologists from being engaged in military interrogations.
The 2007 APA convention rejected your resolution suggesting a ban on psychologists´ involvement in military interrogations. Why, do you think, did the delegates not support this standpoint?
- Most members of APA Council trusted the organization’s leadership on this issue. They accepted claims that psychologists had played a major role in keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective” as the repeated APA mantra – taken directly from the Pentagon’s instructions to the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams – claimed. The reality is, however, quite the opposite. Psychologists were among the key creators of the techniques used in the Bush administration’s regime of torture and abuse.
- There is no public evidence that any psychologist took steps to end abuse ordered or condoned by their commanders. This fantasy, that psychologists regularly acted to prevent abuse, is connected with the fantasy that U.S. abuse was the exclusive result of rogue interrogators, the famous “bad apples.” The reality is that it was widespread, systematically designed, and ordered or condoned by those in command, going up to the top of the U.S. administration.
- Further, the profession of psychology has strong links going back decades with the U.S. military-intelligence establishment. The military, Veterans Administration, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other intelligence institutions are among the largest employers of psychologists and sources of research funding. There are also strong personal ties between APA leadership and that of the military-intelligence establishment. The APA leadership feared, as did some Council members, that taking a strong position against participation in detainee abuse could endanger those relationships.
How can the psychologists promote ethical interrogations if they do not stay engaged in these activities?
- Why assume that psychologists have any special role in promoting ethical interrogations?
-If one truly wants to promote ethical interrogations, transparency is the solution. The Abu Ghraib abuses became public only when photographs appeared. If one truly aimed to reduce abuse, it would only require cameras in every detention center and videotaping of every interrogation, with independent access to the tapes. Instead, the Defense Department reaction after Abu Ghraib was to order all cameras removed from detention centers.
- Further, we need independent human rights monitors in the detention centers, with full access. The independent monitors need the right to report publicly on abuses they witness. Of course this is “utopian.” But this is no more utopian than the fantasy that psychologists have any unique qualities that will lead them, any more than anyone else, to risk their careers and oppose abuse. Psychologists, with all we’ve learned about the powerful effects of settings upon individual behavior, should be the first to recognize this truth.
What will be your next step in this question?
- Proponents of change in APA policy are engaged in a number of initiatives. One realm of action is occurring at the state level. The California Senate is considering a bill that would request that health providers licensed in the state be removed from any direct role in interrogating “enemy alien” detainees. Initiatives to pass similar bills in other states are currently in various stages of development.
- In thinking of the future, it is important to remember that the struggle to change APA policy is simply part of a larger struggle against the torture being utilized, and defended by the U.S. government.
- We need a truth and reconciliation process to make public the details of these abuses and to explore the institutional and moral changes needed to prevent their recurrence. As part of this process, the health professions must come to terms with their professions’ roles in U.S. abuses. We need a committee of prominent members of the varied health professions, psychology included, along with human rights advocates, attorneys and others to work to synthesize the information in the public record about the role of these professionals in detainee and other abuses committed by our government. This committee should also explore systemic and institutional changes necessary to deter recurrence of collaboration in future governmental abuses. Ideally, this committee would be created by the major professional associations acting in concert with human rights organizations. Such a step would signify important movement in helping psychology and the other professions come to terms with this shameful episode in our history.
Eva Brita Järnefors
Swedish Journal of Psychology
———————————————–
Here are my complete responses:
The 2007 APA convention rejected your resolution suggesting a ban on psychologists´ involvement in military interrogations. Why, do you think, did the delegates not support this standpoint?
This question can be answered at several levels. At one level, of course, we failed to get the votes. We failed to convince a majority of Council members, the body of elected APA members who are to represent all other members, to vote against the leadership. But why?
Most members of APA Council trusted the organization’s leadership on this issue. They accepted claims that psychologists had played a major role in keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective” as the repeated APA mantra – taken directly from the Pentagon’s instructions to the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams – claimed. The reality is, however, quite the opposite. Psychologists were among the key creators of the techniques used in the Bush administration’s regime of torture and abuse. An extensive record of journalistic reports and official documents demonstrate that psychologists designed, conducted, and standardized the abusive techniques used in the U.S. detention facilities.
Rather than come to terms with the role of psychologists in U.S. abuse, it was easier for all concerned to believe that psychologists actually prevented abuse. While one psychologist – Michael Gelles – did take actions to report abuse, he was not in one of the chains of commands perpetrating the abuses, and, in fact, was supported by his commanders. There is no public evidence that any psychologist took steps to end abuse ordered or condoned by commanders. This fantasy that psychologists regularly acted to prevent abuse is connected with the fantasy that U.S. abuse was the exclusive result of rogue interrogators, the famous “bad apples.” The reality is that it was widespread, systematically designed, and condoned by those in command, going up to the top of the U.S. administration. APA Council members have continued to accept these fantasies.
Attempts to clarify matters at Council were impeded by the APA leadership’s use of parliamentary maneuvers to change the resolution being voted upon until the last moment. Thus, despite the moratorium resolution being on the table for an entire year, many critics, first saw the draft of the resolution that was voted upon after the Council meeting where the vote took place had started. Such maneuvers impeded successful attempts to organize.
APA Council members also fell victim to a well-orchestrated rumor campaign to spread fear among the profession that a ban on psychologists participating in the human rights abuses in U.S. detention centers would lead to future bans on a wide range of professional activities in prisons, police departments, and even corporations and other large institutions.
Further, the profession of psychology has strong links going back decades with the U.S. military-intelligence establishment. The military, Veterans Administration, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other intelligence institutions are among the largest employers of psychologists and sources of research funding. There are also strong personal ties between APA leadership and that of the military-intelligence establishment. The APA leadership feared, as did some Council members, that taking a strong position against participation in detainee abuse could endanger those relationships. To the contrary, after 9-11, the APA participated in variety of activities to demonstrate that psychology was a willing and able partner in the administration’s “Global War against Terror.” Thus, closed, invitation-only conferences were held jointly with the CIA, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. Discussions included such topics as the recognition of deception, the use of drugs in interrogations, and the gathering of intelligence that the person being interrogated might not know he or she has. Psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, later reported in the New Yorker, Salon.com, and Vanity Fair to have been the prime movers in designing CIA torture in the so-called “black sites,” participated in one of these conferences.
Finally, APA leadership was able to get its way because the voting APA Council, although elected, is, to a degree, an exclusive club. Often the same individuals get elected to Council from one division after another, thus maintaining stability of membership. There is great pressure not to rock the boat among Council members. Thus, a Council member was accused by a former APA President of slander simply for circulating a published magazine article naming Mitchell and Jessen as torturers. In many cases, we critics have been unable to find a single Council member willing to take the heat and circulate our statements on the Council listserv. Last year a former APA President circulated an attack on a dissident member of the APA’s task force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS; a task force that was secretly dominated by psychologists from the chains of command accused of perpetrating detainee abuse). When we penned a response to the attack, the President refused our request that she circulate it to Council; not one Council member was willing to distribute it and most members of Council thus saw only the attack on the dissident member—not the response. Given the monopoly of communication exerted on Council, it is, perhaps not surprising that most Council members accepted the position of the APA leadership.
How can the psychologists promote ethical interrogations if they do not stay engaged in these activities?
The way this question is framed is biased. Why assume that psychologists have any special role in promoting ethical interrogations? The historical record would argue the converse. Why would one turn to the profession that helped design the torture to keep it ethical? This question too is based on the fantasy that the abuse is the result of the actions of individuals and can be prevented by individuals. Again, the abuse at U.S. detention facilities is systemic, having been authorized at the highest levels of the administration. Military and intelligence psychologists are fighting hard for increased recognition for their work in these institutions. They would thus appear to be among those least likely to risk their recognition and livelihood by exposing systemic abuse. In addition, intelligence professionals have characterized scientists and health professionals as among the most highly manipulable.
If one truly wants to promote ethical interrogations, transparency is the solution. The Abu Ghraib abuses became public only when photographs appeared. If one truly aimed to reduce abuse, it would only require cameras in every detention center and videotaping of every interrogation, with independent access to the tapes. Instead, the Defense Department reaction after Abu Ghraib was to order all cameras removed from detention centers.
Further, we need independent human rights monitors in the detention centers, with full access. The International Committee of the Red Cross, while conducting admirable work, cannot play this role, as their reports are secret. The independent monitors need the right to report publicly on abuses they witness. Of course this is “utopian.” But this is no more utopian than the fantasy that psychologists have any unique qualities that will lead them, any more than anyone else, to risk their careers and oppose abuse. Psychologists, with all we’ve learned about the powerful effects of settings upon individual behavior, should be the first to recognize this truth.
It is also important to recognize that the concept that psychologists “promote ethical interrogations” comes from the instructions to precisely those psychologists who were first reported to have participated in abuse at Guantanamo. Thus, Col. Morgan Banks wrote in a draft of his instructions to the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams that their mission was to “Provide psychological expertise and consultation to assist command in conducting safe, legal, ethical, and effective interrogation and detainee operations.” These instructions were distributed to the PENS task force and this phrase, that psychologists keep interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective,” has appeared in the PENS Report and other APA materials ever since. Surely we should be skeptical that those widely reported to have perpetrated interrogation abuses are a serious force to “promote ethical interrogations.”
What will be your next step in this question?
Proponents of change in APA policy are engaged in a number of initiatives. Hundreds, if not more, are withholding dues from an organization they see as supporting unethical policies. Many, including a number of our most prominent psychologists, have resigned entirely. Several college and university psychology departments have passed resolutions opposing APA policy. Efforts of these kinds will only increase if APA policy doesn’t change, leading to a decline in strength of the organization as many U.S. psychologists decide to affiliate elsewhere.
To its credit, the APA, in its 2007 Convention, banned psychologist participation in 19 specific torture (or cruel, inhuman, or degrading, to use the legal jargon) techniques. Unfortunately, the resolution contained loopholes that would allow continued use of some of those techniques in certain circumstances. These loopholes led Salon.com reporter Mark Benjamin to wonder, “Will psychologists still abet torture?” For three months after the convention the APA deflected all attempts to clarify these “loopholes.” After an onslaught of negative publicly, a statement was finally issued in November acknowledging the “unclear or insufficient” language. We hope that the APA leadership is sincere and look forward to working with the APA to close these loopholes and unequivocally ban these techniques. Of course, closing these loopholes does nothing to resolve psychologists’ shameful role in facilitating the Bush administration’s illegal and abusive detention policies at Guantanamo, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the CIA’s secret black sites. To participate in interrogations at these sites in any way is to abet their illegality.
Another realm of action is occurring at the state level. The California Senate is considering a bill that would warn health providers, psychologists included, licensed in that state that they may face future indictment should they participate in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. More importantly, it would request that the Defense Department and the CIA remove all California licensed health providers from participating in interrogations. The APA, along with the state psychological association, is currently working to gut the bill while claiming to support its “intent.” Their strategy is to insert the words “that involve torture,” so that the state requests only that California health providers “participating in any way in prisoner and detainee interrogations that involve torture” be removed from interrogations. Since the Defense Department and CIA insist that they never engage in “torture,” the APA’s proposal would make the resolution meaningless. Fortunately, as of this writing, their efforts have not succeeded and the original resolution was unanimously approved in committee. Initiatives to pass similar bills in other states are currently in various stages of development.
In thinking of the future, it is important to remember that the struggle to change APA policy is simply part of a larger struggle against the torture being utilized, and defended by the U.S. government. In order for these dark times to be transformed, the U.S. public needs to come to terms with the abuses committed in our name. We need a truth and reconciliation process to make public the details of these abuses and to explore the institutional and moral changes needed to prevent their recurrence. As part of this process, the health professions must come to terms with their professions’ roles in U.S. abuses. We need a committee of prominent members of the varied health professions, psychology included, along with human rights advocates, attorneys and others to work to synthesize the information in the public record about the role of these professionals in detainee and other abuses committed by our government. This committee should also explore systemic and institutional changes necessary to deter recurrence of collaboration in future governmental abuses. Ideally, this committee would be created by the major professional associations acting in concert with human rights organizations. If they fail to act, concerned members of the profession may need to undertake this initiative independently. Such a step would signify important movement in helping psychology and the other professions come to terms with this shameful episode in our history.
February 19th, 2008
These are responses to questions posed by Eva Brita Järnefors, editor of the Swedish Journal of Psychology. The answers are by Rea Farberman, the Executive Director for Communications at the American Psychological Association. e.
This is part of a set of articles, together with U.S. psychologists accused of participating in torture by Eva Brita Järnefors and “That psychologists have prevented abuse against detainees is a fantasy” by Stephen Soldz [me]. I encourage you to read them all. The original of all three, in Swedish and English is available as a pdf here; all three can also be accessed in html from here.
“We want to see the documents of the `enhanced´interrogation techniques”
-We have written to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking him to expedite the review of the documents that have provided the basis for the “enhanced” interrogation techniques, says Rea Farberman, the Executive Director for Communications at the American Psychological Association, APA, in Washington.
To inform about the APA policy adopted at the 2007 convention, you sent the 2007 resolution to key members of the Congress, to President George W Bush, and to key officials within the Dep. of Defense and CIA. Have you received any positive answers from these institutions?
The “responses” have come in the form of invitations to meet with both Congressional and Federal officials to share information. These meetings have given us the opportunity to more fully communicate APA’s position that torture and other forms of abusive treatment should never be permissible in any interrogations or detainee procedure as well as to underscore the ethical obligations and science that support that position. APA also submitted testimony on psychology and interrogation for a hearing before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That testimony addressed psychologists’ contributions to eliciting information; the need for strict ethical guidelines within interrogation policy; and the need for further research in this area.
APA says (web site: Media information) that psychologists, by staying engaged in military interrogations, “have a vital role to play in promoting the use of ethical interrogations to safeguard the welfare of detainees and facilitate communication with them”. During the last 5 years, psychologists have not, it would seem, been able to stop mistreatment of detainees to any large extent. The American Medical Association does not permit their members to remain involved in these types of interrogations. Have you considered their standpoint for APA´s members: No psychologists involved - no risk to legitimize torture and abuse?
There has been a considerable amount of study and dialogue about APA’s position, yes. The APA Council of Representatives (the Association’s policy making body) has considered the issue at each of its last four meetings. Council has passed numerous resolutions enunciating it’s no torture policy including one adopted this past summer which enumerated 19 interrogation techniques as torture and was hailed by the Washington Post as a “rebuke of Bush Administration policy”. We also had a series of sessions at APA’s 2007 convention devoted to debate and dialogue on the issue. Furthermore, the process begun by the 2005 APA PENS Task Force continues as the APA Ethics Committee works on a casebook and commentary designed to speak to any areas of ambiguity as to a psychologist’s role and ethical obligations vis-à-vis
detainee interrogations and/or treatment.
It is fair to note that while prisoner mistreatment has surely and regrettably taken place, we also know of instances of psychologists stepping in to prevent prisoner abuse or being sent into situations where abuse had taken place to prevent it from happening again. Dr. Michael Gelles, for example, was hailed by a medical ethicist for his “successful medical protest of prisoner abuse” at Guantanamo Bay. Dr. Larry James is a second example. He was sent to Abu Ghraib to take charge of implementing procedures to prevent further episodes of prisoner maltreatment. Furthermore, APA policy has been incorporated into Department of Defense policy regarding how interrogations are to be conducted. And now, there are human rights groups advocating that the revised Army Field Manual, which binds all Department of Defense interrogations,
be adopted as the uniform standard of interrogation for the entire government
What will be your next step in this question?
The Casebook I mentioned above is an important next step.APA has also written to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asking him to expedite the review of the Office of Legal Counsel documents that have provided the basis for the Bush administration’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques. APA encouraged him to issue a public report of his investigation and findings. It is also likely that members will continue to study the issue and voice their opinions through convention sessions and other types of member communications. Further deliberation by the APA Council could also take place if a member of that body wishes to place the subject on an agenda for a future Council meeting.
Eva Brita Järnefors
Swedish Journal of Psychology
February 19th, 2008