Psyche, Science, and Society

APA Referendum: Why focus upon abusive settings?

August 29th, 2008

The writers of the American Psychological Association referendum currently being voted upon have isued a statement explaining why the referendum focusses upon participation in abusive settings and not the actions of individual psychologists:

Why Settings?

By Dan Aalbers, Ruth Fallenbaum, & Brad Olson

Q. Why have you chosen to focus on settings rather than individual actions?

A: We have four main reasons for doing so:

1. Psychologists know from decades of research that good people do bad things in bad situations (cf. Ross and Nisbett, 1991, Zimbardo, 2007).  Psychologists subject to the chain of command in an inherently abusive environment (e.g., the CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay) are no less vulnerable to “drift” than anyone else; it is time to start applying the hard-learned lessons of psychology to psychologists.

2. The presence of psychologists legitimizes the operations of these facilities.  This is because the Bush administration has redefined torture in a way that all but guarantees that psychologists will play a role in any given torture session.  To understand why one needs to explore the labyrinths of this administration’s legal defense of torture.

Most psychologists have heard of the infamous Yoo-Bybee legal memos that redefined torture so that only pain equivalent to that experienced during “death, organ failure or the permanent impairment of a significant body function” could be considered torture, but fewer psychologists know that the same memos incorporate psychologists into this administration’s legal defense of torture.

Yoo argues that torture can only take place if the perpetrator intends to cause prolonged mental harm:

“If a defendant has a good faith belief that his actions will not result in prolonged mental harm, he lacks the mental state necessary for his actions to constitute torture. A defendant could show that he acted in good faith by taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts, or reviewing evidence gained from past experience.”

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf

Thus, by consulting with a psychologist an interrogator demonstrates that his or her intent is to extract information and not to cause harm; if the interrogator is a psychologist he or she can demonstrate good intent by reviewing the literature before an interrogation.  Of course members of other professions — say sociology — could also perform this same role but there is an advantage in using clinical psychologists since Yoo argues that one has only suffered ‘prolonged mental harm’ if the victim suffers from PTSD or (untreated) depression and psychologists can diagnose these disorders while other social scientists cannot:

“the development of a mental disorder such as posttraumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which also can last for a considerable period of time if untreated, might satisfy the prolonged harm requirement”

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf

Psychologists hold the keys to these abusive settings because the clandestine services need psychologists to tell them that they are not torturing.   As Alexander Leighton once said: “the administrator uses social science the way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination.”

3. We find these settings inherently offensive.  Even without evidence of torture, we would object to the participation of psychologists in a system that buys people from mercenaries, ships them off to secret locations and holds them there for an indefinite period of time.

4. Although the accounts of prisoners who have been released and information emerging from military tribunals are beginning to provide first hand accounts about the treatment in Guantanamo Bay, we do not know what actions are being performed in the CIA black sites. These settings are - by their very nature - closed to scrutiny.  What little we do know comes from heavily redacted documents released through the freedom of information act requests and a handful of leaked documents.  We do know that abuse has taken place, we do know that psychologists have contributed to this abuse and we do know that those have who operate these facilities have resisted calls to allow a full, independent investigation.  Obviously, this is not a sound basis for oversight.

Entry Filed under: APA, CIA, Guantanamo, Psychological Torture, Psychology, Torture