Psyche, Science, and Society

Stephen Soldz responds to questions from the Swedish Journal of Psychology

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.

Entry Filed under: APA, Guantanamo, Interrogation, Law, Psychological Torture, Psychology, SERE, Torture