Psyche, Science, and Society

“Enhanced Interrogation techniques” still on the table

Talking Points Memo points out that Obama has not renounced use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” “Non-torture” torture is still on the table:

The most pointed attack on President Obama in Dick Cheney’s speech yesterday was his claim that after all is said and done Obama is still reserving to himself the right to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the future. We documented that this talking point is a riff off comments made by CIA Director Leon Panetta — and that it’s arguably stretching what Panetta actually said. But it should be noted that Chris Matthews gave David Axelrod a chance to rebut Cheney’s claim, and Axelrod only danced around the question. Watch the video. We asked the White House yesterday to comment on Cheney’s claim and got no response.

After all, they are reviewing possible modifications the Army Field Manual, which already, in Appendix M, authorizes isolation, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation. Obama doesn’t get credit for ending torture until that review is completed and we learn its results. If techniques are added to the Field Manual, or Appendix M is retained, then abuse remains, fine-sounding words or not.

May 23rd, 2009

Serwer at TAP: “Barack Obama may be far more dangerous than George W. Bush when it comes to violating our civil liberties”

Adam Serwer at The American Prospect understands the profound danger posed by Barak Obama to freedom and the rule of law in this country. On detention without trial:

Herein lies the most dangerous path for us as a country–whether or not you believe these men are guilty, the fact is that detention without due process is a fundamental violation of the same laws that Obama called “the source of our strength through the ages.” I am skeptical that this power, once invoked, can ever be restrained.

But, most dangerously, it is Obama’s political “pragmatism”, when combined with his popularity and ability to convince the public that poses the greatest danger:

In a sense, Barack Obama may be far more dangerous than George W. Bush when it comes to violating our civil liberties; where the American people feared the excesses of Bush, they trust wholly in the sincerity of Barack Obama. At least for now.

Tyranny proposed as reasonableness is even more dangerous than the obvious extremes of the Bush administration.

May 23rd, 2009

Conservative talk show host Eric “Mancow” Muller discovers “torture” during waterboarding

Conservative talk show host Eric “Mancow” Muller underwent waterboarding to demonstrate it wasn’t that bad. He discovered the opposite after about six seconds.

“It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that’s no joke.” He added: “Had I known that it was that bad I wouldn’t have done this … I don’t want to say this: absolutely torture.”

He made clear that he would never have undergone it if he knew it was that bad.

[H/t TPMuckraker.]

May 23rd, 2009

Link TV: Torture on Trial

Link TV has a show broadcasting next week: aTorture on Trial. But you can watch it here now!

“Torture on Trial” is a Link TV original production that investigates
the history of interrogations in the “War on Terrorism”, and the
growing movement calling for accountability for those who authorized
and participated in torture.

Featured guests include:

George Hunsinger
Founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Jane Mayer
Staff Writer with The New Yorker & Author of “The Dark Side”

Mark Danner
UC Berkeley Journalism Professor, Author of “Torture and Truth” & Contributor to The New York Review of Books

Elisa Massimino
Executive Director of Human Rights First

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.)
Former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell

Maj. Matthew Alexander
U.S. Air Force Interrogator

Airdates

TimezoneM C E
Monday, June 1st
02:00 am
Tuesday, June 2nd
09:30 pm
Saturday, June 6th
06:00 pm
Sunday, June 7th
09:00 pm
Wednesday, June 10th
04:30 pm
Thursday, June 11th
02:30 am

DIRECTV Channel 375 | DISH Network Channel 9410

May 22nd, 2009

Obama’s nice words, but…

On Obma’s big speech TPM captures my sentiments with this headline:

Human Rights Groups: Nice Words, But Obama Policies Mimic Bush’s

It will take more than nice words to convince us that Obama really means change. And end to indefinite detention. No trials with the rules made by the prosecution in order to assure convictions. And an end to the daily brutality of Guantanamo or wherever people are held.

And, above all, a full accounting of illegal abuses and punishment for crimes. Otherwise the abusive practices will return as soon as an administration feels its a good idea. For such a smart man, Obama’s actions are incredibly stupid.

1 comment May 22nd, 2009

Walt: Want to stop torture? End empire

Stephen Walt, writing in Foreign Policy from a realist foreign policy perspective, makes the critical connection between empire and torture. His conclusion:

[T]he best way to make the problem go away for good is to get out of the business of occupying and trying to govern other countries.

Here is the whole piece:

Torture and empire

By Stephen M. Walt

I haven’t said anything about President Obama’s decision not to release additional photos of detainee abuse, and the related stories suggesting that the Bush administration tortured detainees in large part to find some link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that would justify invading Iraq. But I agree with those who believe the Obama administration can’t put this behind us by “walking forward,” or trying to sweep it under the rug. And if Jack Goldsmith is correct to say that Obama is keeping most of the elements of the Bush “war on terror” in place, then the president may be inviting more trouble than just the disappointment of MoveOn.org.

First, as I suggested in another context last week, the only way that a country can regain its reputation in the aftermath of serious misconduct is to stop the wrongdoing, express regret for it, and not do it again.  Americans have wondered “why do they hate us?” ever since 9/11, and there is abundant survey and anecdotal evidence confirming that anti-Americanism is mostly a reaction to U.S. policies and not a rejection of American values, culture, or identity. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, for example, “antipathy toward the United States is shaped more by what it does in the international arena than by what it stands for politically and economically.” Similarly, the State Department’s Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy found that “Arabs and Muslims…support our values but believe our policies do not live up to them.” And they wrote that before we knew about Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, or the full extent of the torture regime.

It follows that we aren’t going to fuel more anti-Americanism by fully acknowledging and coming to terms with past abuses, because most people already understand what happened under Bush and Cheney. We are talking here about filling in details and holding people accountable. What Obama needs to do is draw a sharp break from these practices, to signal to the world that what happened under his predecessors was an aberration and not “business as usual.” The more features of the Bush order that he retains, the more incidents he tries to cover up, and the more people he insulates from exposure or prosecution, the harder it will be to characterize the recent past as a shameful episode that is unrepresentative of America’s true character. Other countries will doubt things have really changed, and with good reason.

Second, although I’m even more skeptical of “blue-ribbon” commissions than Frank Rich, I’ve come to believe that a credible commission offers the best way forward at this point. But let’s not just populate it with a bipartisan group of the usual Washington insiders and toothless politicos. There’s enough evidence to suggest that some powerful Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew what was going on and said nothing, which means that both parties are to some degree implicated in this scandal.  Inside-the-beltway careerists are part of a political culture where mutual back-scratching and excuse-making are well-established norms, and thus a commission dominated by the usual familiar faces is unlikely to produce a serious report and won’t have sufficient credibility at home or abroad. The 9/11 Commission or the 2004 Schlesinger Report on DoD detention procedures (undertaken in response to Abu Ghraib) are cases in point: although both panels produced some useful information and identified certain errors, each pulled a lot of punches too.

One need only recall the contribution that iconoclastic physicist Richard Feynman made to the presidential commission on the space shuttle Challenger disaster to recognize the value of appointing smart people who are willing to challenge powerful institutions, incumbent leaders, and orthodox thinking. So instead of an investigative commission dominated by well-known Washington insiders, I’d like to see one whose ranks include a substantial number of well-qualified critics and independent thinkers. Along with the usual (yawn) suspects, how about including Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, blogger Glenn Greenwald, conservative law professor Richard Epstein, Congressman (and former presidential candidate) Ron Paul, or former MacArthur Foundation president Adelle Simmons?

Last point: we also need to reflect on the connection between U.S. grand strategy and these sorry episodes. It is tempting to blame this whole problem on the misguided machinations of Bush, Cheney, and their minions, who took advantage of the post-9/11 climate of fear to implement a torture regime, but that convenient explanation is a bit too simple. In fact, this sort of abuse is likely to be repeated as long as the United States maintains a highly interventionist foreign and military policy. If the United States continues to send military forces and lethal armed drones to attack people in far-flung lands, some of the people we kill will be innocent civilians — thereby fomenting greater hatred of the United States — and the people we are going after will try to hit us back. Our enemies will use our actions to recruit sympathizers — just as Osama bin Laden did — and every time some terrorist group gets lucky and get through, the U.S. government will be tempted to adopt even harsher measures to try to stop the next attack.  Not only does this cycle threaten civil liberties here at home, but it tends to embroil us in social engineering projects in societies that we do not understand (see under: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.). We can also be confident that other potential rivals are secretly thrilled to see us squandering lots of blood and treasure on lengthy occupations and open-ended counterinsurgency operations.

Unfortunately, history also shows that prolonged occupations and counterinsurgencies always lead to significant abuses. It is the nature of the beast. This is what happened to Britain in the Boer War, Belgium in its central African empire, France in Indochina and Algeria, Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya, Israel in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and the United States in Iraq. The United States may not be as heavy-handed as some earlier imperial powers, although our treatment of native Americans was horrible and our handling of Japanese-Americans in World War II is a dark stain on our past. The key point is that the idea of a purely benevolent “empire” is a contradiction in terms and we are fooling ourselves if we think we can run one.

Bottom line: if you don’t like Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, waterboarding, etc., the best way to make the problem go away for good is to get out of the business of occupying and trying to govern other countries.

************

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.

1 comment May 21st, 2009

Michael Isikoff and Rachel Maddow on White House meeting with human rights advocates

Michael Isikoff on Rachel Maddow discussing Obama’s private off-the-record Bush meeting with human rights groups yesterday. It appears that Obama didn’t like the characterization that his policies were a continuation of Bush’s, but he didn’t actually announced anything substantively different.

He was again firmly against any accountability for torture. He firmly said there would be no torture prosecutions, thereby making clear that he is again politicizing the Justice Department. He has so far demonstrated no respect for the rule of law, believing, apparently, that the law can be bent for his convenience.

Just as Bush said “We do not torture,” Obama repetitively says “I am not like Bush.” Both statements, alas, are false.

It is now time to refer to the Bush-Obama policies. Obama has made the Bush policies his own.

7 comments May 21st, 2009

Bond: APA, stop promising to “act”!

Psychologist Trudy Bond in CounterPunch takes on the latest statement from American Psychological Association President James Bray:

Back’atcha Bro!
Torture, Shrinks and a Groundhog’s Day Moment

By Trudy Bond

Did you hear about the torture
In the newspapers that you read?
Did you pretend it didn’t matter?
Did you blame a few bad men?
Did you think that your leaders
Wouldn’t just do it all again?

How far is it from here to Nuremberg?

–David Rovics

Dr. James Bray, current president of the American Psychological Association (yes, those guys again), recently responded to a group of psychologists with the admonition, “I have a request for each of you. As you know, our association has a long history of adamantly opposing torture and the abusive interrogation of detainees. I hope you will accurately reflect this in your communications.” (Sarcasm in italics added.)

If only . . . IF ONLY APA would abide by its own counsel. In his most recent press release, Dr. Bray asserted, “APA has declared that psychologists have an obligation to intervene to stop torture or abuse, and a further obligation to report any instance of torture or abuse.” Really Dr. Bray?? Then perhaps you could explain to us why, out of the many military psychologists that have been deployed to Guantanamo, we’ve only heard a brief complaint from psychologist Mike Gelles. APA has repeatedly used him as an example of psychologists “doing the right thing.” What about the many other psychologists at Guantanamo the last seven years . . . why haven’t we heard from them when detainees were brutalized outside of the interrogation room, with the military forcing their heads into toilets, breaking bones, gouging their eyes, squeezing their testicles, urinating on a prisoner’s head, banging their heads on concrete floors, hog-tying them, sometimes leaving prisoners tied in excruciating positions for hours on end, days and days and weeks and weeks in isolation or subject to sleep deprivation.

We know some of their names, these military psychologists at Guantanamo, but none of them have come forward to “intervene to stop the torture and abuse” that continues at Guantanamo, as Dr. Bray demands in his best, politically-correct, hollow announcement.

Dr. Bray continues: “Furthermore, APA stands ready to adjudicate reports that any APA member has engaged in prohibited techniques.” And this becomes my personal Groundhog Day.

You see, Dr. Bray, I’ve been here before. Ironically, one year ago this month, I appealed to your organization for truth and action, after the three previous presidents of APA made the same meaningless statements:

Gerald Koocher, APA President 2006: “I should also note that A.P.A. has taken a very strong stance against the use of torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment, and if anyone is able to identify A.P.A. members who have been involved in such activities, we will take disciplinary action.”

Sharon Brehm, APA President 2007: “Any allegations that a member has violated APA’s strict prohibition against engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment will be investigated and, if the evidence warrants, adjudicated.”

Alan E. Kazdin, APA President 2008: “Any APA member found to have violated this prohibition would be subject to sanction under our Code of Ethics.”

And now you, Dr. Bray, offering the same empty promise. There is no truth in your statement, or the statements of the preceding three presidents of APA. Your organization has refused for two years to rule on a complaint I have filed against a member of APA who has clearly violated your Code of Ethics.

Follow your own sanctimonious advice to others and “accurately reflect” the intentions of the American Psychological Association. Stop intoning the glittering generalities of your predecessors. You insult those who of us who still believe in our ethics and you demean the victims of those psychologists who have perpetrated criminal acts.

**********

Dr. Trudy Bond is a licensed psychologist in Ohio. She can be reached at ar_mordilo@yahoo.com.

May 20th, 2009

Mental Health professionals’ letter asks Michelle Obama to investigate diagnostic abuse of veterans

I recently published an article — Diagnostic abuse of veterans and the dilemmas of health professional ethics — [based on reporting by Mark Benjamin and Michael de Yoanna in Salon] on Army pressures for mental health clinicians to not diagnose post traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] in returning soldiers. A group of approximately 130 psychologists and mental health professionals responded to my article by writing Michelle Obama and asking her to look into these charges. Here is their letter:

May 12, 2009

First Lady
Michelle Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C.

Dear First Lady,

We are a group of mental health professionals who hope to reach you about an issue concerning the treatment of our veterans.  We are grateful that you have taken an interest in the well-being of veterans and their families, recognizing the weight of responsibility and trauma they may carry during and after service to our country.

In writing we want to call your attention to a concern that official pressures may be interfering with returning soldiers receiving appropriate treatment.  A recent series in Salon by Mark Benjamin and Michael de Yoanna (latest May 5, 2009), reports pressure placed on mental health professionals to under-diagnose Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in returning combat veterans regardless of the clinical reality.  A number of our colleagues who work with veterans have relayed similar experiences of pressure to misdiagnose.

One consequence of this apparent misdiagnosis is that the men and women who served our country do not receive appropriate Veterans’ benefits when their diagnoses do not correctly attribute their emotional problems to their combat experiences. Instead, their problems are attributed either to less severe “anxiety disorders” or to preexisting “personality disorders.”  In addition to potential loss of benefits to which combat veterans are due, misdiagnoses can result in inappropriate treatment and in the veteran being held responsible for part or all of the cost of treatment for conditions caused by combat experience.

As mental health professionals, we are deeply disturbed that pressure is being put upon colleagues to give incorrect diagnoses for reasons antithetical to the best interests of our patients.  Those who suffer serious disorders in the service of our country deserve better.  They deserve the best treatment available.  We are also concerned that this pressure may undermine the ethical foundation upon which the mental health professions are based.

We have included an essay by Dr. Stephen Soldz, co-founder of the Coalition for an Ethical APA and Steering Committee Member of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, which we believe sheds important light on this subject.

We ask you to look into this matter and related issues concerning the mental health treatment of our soldiers and veterans.  We are willing to assist you in any ways we can in this endeavor.

With respect and regards,

Alice Lowe Shaw, Ph.D.
President-Elect Section IX, Division 39
Psychoanalysis and Social Responsibility

Stephen Soldz, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Research, Evaluation and Program Development
Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis

Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR), organizational endorsement
700+ members

Thomas Rosbrow, Ph.D.
Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California (PINC)
San Francisco

Marilyn S. Jacobs, Ph.D., ABPP
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA
Dept. of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences
Los Angeles

Melanie Suchet, Ph.D.
Stephen A. Mitchell Center for Relational Studies
New York City

Lynne Layton, Ph.D.
Harvard Medical School
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Katie Gentile, Ph.D.
Women’s Center Director
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
New York City

Karen Rosica, Psy.D.
Denver, Colorado

Richard Reichbart, Ph.D.
Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (IPTAR)
Ridgewood, N.J.

Rachael Peltz, Ph.D.
PINC
San Francisco

Elizabeth Hirky, Ph.D.
Senior Psychologist
Bellevue Hospital Center
New York City

Julie Gerhardt, Ph.D.
PINC
San Francisco

Ruth Fallenbaum, Ph.D.
Berkeley,  California

Nina K. Thomas, Ph.D., ABPP
NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
New York City

Susan Gutwill, MS, LCSW
Highland Park, New Jersey

Diane Ehrensaft, Ph.D.
Oakland, CA

Brad Olson, Ph.D.
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois

Susan Phipps-Yonas, Ph.D., L.P.
Minneapolis, MN

Lorri Greene, Ph.D.
San Diego, CA

Ryan Hunt

Connie Evert, Ph.D.
Philadelphia

Leni de Mik, Ph.D.
Minneapolis, MN

Larry Welkowitz, Ph.D.
Keene State College,
Keene, New Hampshire

Frank Summers, Ph.D., ABPP
Northwestern University
Chicago, Il

Jeanne Wolff Bernstein, Ph.D.
Berkeley, CA

Kenneth Feiner, Ph.D.
NYC

Jancis Long, Ph.D.
President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Berkeley, CA

John Neafsey, Psy.D.
Chicago, Il

Thomas S. Greenspon, Ph.D.
Minneapolis, MN

Stephen Botticelli, Ph.D.
NYC

Loren Krane, Ph.D.
UCSF Dept of Psychiatry
San Francisco

Trudy Bond, Ph.D.
Toledo, OH

Armond Aserinsky, Ph.D.
North Wales, PA

Muriel Dimen, Ph.D.
NYC

Donna Bassin, Ph.D.
Secretary APA Division 39, Section IX

Ellen G. Levine, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Castro Valley, CA

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D.
Past President, PsySR

Polly Scarvalone, Ph.D.
NYC

Cynthia Colvin, Ph.D.
PINC
Oakland, CA

Laurel Bass Wagner, Ph.D.
Dallas, TX

Stefan R. Zicht, Psy.D.
NYC

Helene Goldberg, Ph.D.

Stephen Benson, Ph.D.
Blue Hill, ME

Maureen Murphy, MSN, Ph.D.
San Francisco

Virginia Goldner, Ph.D.

Nancy Burke, Ph.D.
Northwestern University
University Medical School
Chicago, Il

Elizabeth Hegeman, Ph.D.
Professor John Jay College of Criminal Justice
William A. White Institute
NYC

Leigh Messinides, Ph.D.
Tustin, CA

Peter Shabad, Ph.D.
Chicago

Ann B. Clarkson, Ph.D.
Portland, OR

Mary-Joan Gerson, Ph.D.

Sonia Orenstein, Ph.D.
NYC

Jill Bellinson, Ph.D.
NYC

Stephen Portuges, Ph.D.
Executive Editor, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies
Los Angeles

Andrew Tatarsky, Ph.D.
Past president, Division on Addiction,
New York State Psychological Assn.
NYC

Susan Bodnar, Ph.D.
NYC

Todd Essig, Ph.D.
William Alanson White Institute
NYC

Sharon Brennan, Ph.D.

Christy Paliouras, Ph.D.
Astoria, NY

Maureen C. Grix, Ph.D.
The Suffolk Institute
Garden City,  NJ

Maureen O’Reilly-Landry, Ph.D.
Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons
NYC

David Sloan-Rossiter, Ph.D.
Brookline, MA

Steven Reisner, Ph.D.
NYC

David Thurn, LMSW, PH.D.
NYC

Richard Lasky, Ph.D.
Clinical Professor of Psychology
NYU Post-Doctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
NYC

Elaine Gould, Ph.D.
New York

Susan Katz

Richard B. Gartner, Ph.D.
NYC

Eric W. Anders, Ph.D., Psy.D.
Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis
Oakland, CA

Linda R. Laughlin, Ph.D.

William A. MacGillivray, Ph.D., ABPP,
University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN

Kathryn G. White, Ph.D.
New Haven, CT

Katie L. Fitzpatrick, M.A.
University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN

Dana Satir, M.A.
Center for Anxiety and Related Discord
Boston, MA

Kathleen W. Erickson, LCSW
(mother of an Iraq War veteran)
Knoxville, TN

Robert K. Albiston, Ph.D.
Past President, Appalacian Psychoanalytic Assn.
Knoxville, TN

Edward R. Ryan, Ph.D.
New Haven, CT

Mila R. Tecala, Lic. SW
Washington, D.C.

Greta H. Gustafson, LCSW
NYC

Mark S. Kane, Ph.D.
Michigan

Margaret L. White, Ph.D.
Upper Montclair, NJ

Christine A. Chapman, LCSW

Cathy S. Nelson, LISW
Ames, IA

Adrienne Harris, Ph.D.
NYC

Erika Vadopalas, LMFT
Coming Home Project
San Carlos, California

Annita Sawyer, Ph.D.
Yale Medical School
New Haven, CT

Steven H. Knoblauch, Ph.D.
NYC

Andrew M. Barclay, Ph.D.

Cathie Bird, MA, Psy.D.
Pioneer, TN

Debra Rothschild, Ph.D.
NYC

Luz Towns-Miranda, Ph.D.

NYC

Darlene DiGorio-Hevner, MA, MSW, LCSW
Ardmore, PA

Arlene Lu Steinberg, Ph.D.
Columbia University
NYU

Don Greif, Ph.D.
William Alanson White Institute
NYC

Spyros D. Orfanos, Ph.D., ABPP
Clinic Director
NYU Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis
NYC

Barbara Eisold, Ph.D.
Yeshiva University
NYC

Barbara Blasdel, Ph.D.

Susan R. Greene, Ph.D.
San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis (SFCP)

Candy Siegel, Ph.D.
Tucson, Arizona

Carolyn Ellman, Ph.D.
IPTAR, NYU Postdoctoral Program
NYC

Robert Keisner, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
CW Post/Long Island University
Brookville, NY

Maria T. Russo, Ph.D.
East Hampton, NY

Jerome Siller, Ph.D., ABPP
NYC

Scott W. Smith, M.A.
Doctoral Candidate
Adelphi University
New York

Martha Davis, Ph.D.
Visiting scholar, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
NYC

Stephen J. Ducat, Ph.D.
San Francisco

Debra A. Lopez, MD
Clinical Associate Professor
University of Vermont Dept of Psychiatry
Burlington, VT

Jeffrey F. Johns, MD (former Air Force Psychiatrist)
Oakland, CA

Barbara F. Marcus, Ph.D.
Yale University School of Medicine
Vice President, Board of Trustees and Faculty,
The Western New England Institute of Psychoanalysis
New Haven, CT

Sergio Rothstein, Ph.D.
NYC

Lawrence O. Brown, Ph.D.
Fellow Supervisor of Psychotherapy and Teaching Faculty
William Alanson White Institute
NYC

David G. Byrom, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Family Therapy Institute of Suffolk
Smithtown, NY

Juliet M. Ross, Psy.D.
NYC

Andrew B. Sieff, A.P.N., PMHCNS-BC
Psychiatric Clinical Nurse Specialist
Fayetteville, AR

Mildred Antonelli, Ph.D.
Institute for the Psychoanalytic Study of Subjectivity
NYC

Herbert Gingold, Ph.D.
Co-Founder of the Noir Institute
Kew Gardens, NY

Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, The University of California
Professor, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center
Berkeley, CA

Sharon L. Windwer, Psy.D.
Little Neck, NY

Bonnie J. Lipeles, Psy.D.

Margit Winkler Ph.D.
Supervising Analyst, Wm. Alanson White Institute

Lydia Seggev

Susan Lillich, Ph.D.
Williston, VT

Jules Burnstein, Ph.D.

Ronna Friend, Ph.D.
Eugene, Oregon

Cornelia St. John, MFT
Oakland, CA

Claire Hertz
Institute for Contemporary Psychotherapy
NYC

Linda Schrader, Ph.D.
Bend, OR

Jeff Kaye, Ph.D.
Clinician, Survivors International
San Francisco

Gerald Gray, LCSW
Founder, Center for Justice and Accountability
San Francisco
Co-Founder Institute for Redress and Recovery
Santa Clara University Law School

Philip Hill, Ph.D.

Latika Mangrulkar, MSW, ACSW

Jean Maria Arrigo, Ph.D.

Jonathan Wormhoudt, Ph.D.

Elliot Jurist, Ph.D.

Skye Haberman, Ph.D.

Joanie V. Connors, Ph.D.

Stephen Seligman, D.M.H.
University of California, San Francisco

May 18th, 2009

APA ethics policy-maker clarifies defense of torture; reveals American Psychological Association – Pentagon collusion

The recently public posting on the Propublica web site of the listserv from the American Psychological Association’s secretive 2005 PENS [Psychological Ethics and National Security] task force has again focused attention on the nature of this task force and on potential collusion between the APA and the Pentagon to provide “ethical” cover for psychologists aiding Bush administration interrogations at Guantanamo, the CIA’s “black sites,” and  in in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One piece of evidence supporting a claim of collusion is that, in a highly unusual step, the task force membership was kept confidential from both the APA membership and the press and public. Salon reporter Mark Benjamin had to go to Congressional sources to get the names a year later, though it turned out that they had been available on an obscure website, if one had known to look there. APA members learned from Benjamin that a majority of members were from the military-intelligence establishment. Five of these members had aided Bush-era interrogations, with four from chains of command accused of abuses; among other ethical problems with the task force composition, these members were giving themselves get-out-of-jail-free cards by pronouncing these interrogations “ethical.”

Not long after the listserv release psychologist and PENS member Bryce Lefever was featured on NPR’s All Things Considered, defending CIA torture psychologists Mitchell and Jessen and the reverse-engineering of the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape [SERE] techniques. Lefever revealed in that interview that he saw no ethical problems with Bush administration interrogation tactics, based as they were on the techniques used on US service members in the SERE school where Lefever had served as a psychologist monitoring trainees for possible harm.

The Lefever NPR interview created quite a stir among psychologists, including members of the APA’s Council of Representatives, as it revealed the questionable ethical reasoning of those chosen to form policy for the APA in this critical area. Reportedly, a major figure in the APA military psychology division wrote a letter distancing the division from Lefever’s extreme views, as depicted on NPR. In response to the criticism, Lefever has issued an Open Letter to military psychologists in which he taken exception to this criticism, and to the NPR interview, claiming major distortions of his views by NPR. In addition to clarifying and defending his views, in this Open Letter Lefever incidentally provides additional evidence of APA-Pentagon collusion in forming the PENS task force.

Before examining his Open Letter, it is useful to understand that this NPR interview was not the first time Lefever made the arguments supporting US interrogation tactics. In an article on the NPR interview, I quoted material from the PENS listserv indicating that he made many of the same arguments to the task force, and was largely ignored, but met with no objection from other members. Further, in August 2007, Lefever defended the SERE-based abuse [torture] of Jose Padilla to a Christian Science Monitor reporter:

” ‘There’s something to be said for sending the message that the gloves are coming off,’ says Capt. Bryce Lefever, a Navy psychologist and former SERE school instructor. ‘You don’t take a knife to a gunfight.’

Captain Lefever says it is unfair to compare US antiterror interrogations with Soviet interrogation techniques. ‘Their abuse was a systematic practice to conceal the truth,’ he says. ‘If Padilla was abused, then it was for a righteous purpose – to reveal the truth.’

Lefever opposes the use of torture because in most instances it is ineffective. But sometimes, harsh and brutal tactics can produce results, he adds. The key is that interrogators must be careful in their questions not to telegraph an agenda to the subject, because if the technique is coercive enough, the subject will say anything to make it stop.’ “

Here is the Lefever Open Letter:

“Open Letter to Military Psychology

To Bill Strickland, Eve Weber and members of the military psychology community:

Over the years, I have granted interviews to various publications on matters pertaining to clinical psychology.  I have done so with the intention to inform, educate and persuade both the professional and lay community on matters that I believe are important to the practice of psychology and to the defense of our nation.  I believe that it is the responsible obligation of citizens to debate matters that affect policy, health, freedom, as well as US and world opinion.   I also believe that free, open and honest expression, in pursuit of the truth, is the only way in which any idea can mature or truly progress.  Actions based on ignorance, if they succeed, will do so on dumb luck.  Clarity in our terms, philosophies and ideas will lead to informed decisions.

When I have spoken to the press, I have done so judiciously and have maintained, in every instance, that I speak as a private citizen.  I have never desired or pretended to speak for another person.  And, I have insisted that I do not speak for the Navy, the Department of Defense, or military psychology.  Until recently, this admonition has been largely respected.

There has been a strong reaction to the interview and accompanying article on NPR All Things Considered.  Much of the negative reaction has come from the military psychology community.  This has caused me considerable anguish-particularly because those colleagues critical of the interview condemned it, me, my participation, etc. without first contacting me or seeking to understand.  The Strickland letter immediately sought to distance the military community from what were assumed to be my views.  In the material that follows, I will address a few of the particulars in where and how NPR misrepresented my views.  Now you might ask how, within a recorded interview, my stated views could be twisted or misrepresented.  Let me provide a few examples:

1.    The correspondent, Alix Spiegel, promised that the story would be mine, that she would be in the background and that I would be able to lay out the thesis.  Now, I am not as naïve as some of you would think.  I am aware of NPR’s reputation.  However, with the various assurances, and that my statements would be recorded verbatim, I agreed to the interview.  Hindsight is perfect, however, going in, I had no particular reason to suspect that she would lie, twist and manipulate so egregiously.

2.    The title:  “Military Psychologist Says Harsh Tactics Justified.”  If you believe in the honesty of NPR’s reporting, and logic, you would assume that the rest of the interview would support that headline.  However, I never made such a statement.  In fact, the article quoted me as saying I was opposed to torture and advocated only slow, rapport-building techniques.  When Strickland’s letter stated: “…we strongly disagree with the assertions attributed to Dr. Lefever,”  I was quite taken aback.  I thought that he believed the “hit piece,” didn’t read the story, and disagreed with my position opposing torture.  It is important that we not twist and mischaracterize or misrepresent each other’s positions.

3.    I did not defend Mitchell and Jessen.  I like them and respect them.  However, I told Alix Spiegel several times that they were big boys and could defend themselves.   I did point out I was convinced that harsh tactics worked in interrogation as did a host of other, less harsh measures. I emphatically told her that this was my opinion and that it was a matter for empirical investigation. I stated that in pursuit of the truth, the key when using any interrogation technique, was to never lead the detainee during questioning.

4.    Alix skillfully wove in Answer A on Question B.  For example, I did say that I liked and was proud of the work we did at the SERE Schools.  I did not say or remotely imply that I liked torturing people.  In fact, I have never tortured anyone nor have I advised anyone to do it.  And, by the way, I have never seen it done.

5.    Alix implied that we engaged in tying a prisoner’s arms behind his back and keeping him awake lying on the ground-or advocated these tactics.  In fact, I told the story of CAPT Rod Knutson, whose account was well described in the Reader’s Digest Book: POW, under the title: “A Tough Nut to Crack.”  The technique described was used by the enemy (North Viet Nam-Viet Cong) and is called the rope torture or “rope trick.”  Nothing of the like, to my knowledge, has ever been suggested for use by the American Armed Forces.

6.    Alix made it sound like I advocated putting a bug in with a prisoner.  I never suggested this and believe it is a hapless, stupid idea.  However, I did point out that there were similarities between what was called torture in one context and therapy in another.  My general thesis, over three hours of interviewing, was that empiricists, ethicists, behavioral researchers, academicians, and philosophers needed to debate and decide what constituted torture and the effect of context on the topography of behavior.

7.    I was given a voice in this important debate.  This occurred by my appointment to the PENS Taskforce in 2005.  This appointment was officially requested by my Specialty Leader.  It was sanctioned by the Navy.  It is important that those of us who can contribute to the war of ideas and philosophies do so and that the right, reasonable, prudent, and ethical side win.  For example, the pacifist movement before WWII and the appeasers in England, France and other countries had catastrophic consequences on the events that set the stage for the invasion of Europe by Germany, Nazism, and the Third Reich.  My side of the debate includes standing against terror, protecting America, upholding the Constitution, and adhering to American values and rights as protected by the Constitution.  I am resoundly opposed to pacifism as I believe it is a moralistic-feel good about oneself-philosophy which has no historical support for its efficacy and is contrary to everything I know about human (or animal) behavior.

8.    I pointed out to Alix that I was waterboarded in 1990.  I have been quoted as saying (Vanity Fair) that it was terrifying.  It was.  However, I was not harmed by the experience.  I pointed this out to NPR as well as Vanity Fair and others.  This point is never reported by the press.  I told her that there is no life free of pain or adversity.  And, the Waterboard made me stronger, more able to face the various problems of my life.  My general thesis was, if something does not harm you, can you call it torture?  This has been my consistent question from the PENS Taskforce until now.  By this definition, I have now been tortured by NPR, and by those who have chosen to perpetuate their lies-far more so than by my experience on the Waterboard.  I believe that torture must include the element of harm.  Clearly, as psychologists, we are ethically bound to do no harm.

9.    I also informed Alix that my colleagues at APA have passed a resolution that has the breathtaking arrogance of suggesting how my military colleagues should and should not practice in settings that they have decided are or have been abusive to our Detainees.  I am sure that there have been psychologist consultants to business and industry and that many of those businesses, banks or industry are now failing at great cost to Americans. Perhaps we should pass a resolution limiting their activities. Perhaps those consultants should be limited to treating only those who have lost money at those banks or businesses.  The fact of the matter is that those who have committed heinous acts (criminals, terrorists) are deprived of some or all of their human rights (through incarceration, loss of rights to vote, death penalty, etc.).  Even those accused of committing these acts, though presumed innocent, are deprived of their liberty for the benefit and safety of society.  Human Rights and Ethics are different concerns-although in an ideal world, one becomes the other.  In a world of terror, the peaceful, moral, productive citizen must be protected by those who would deprive his rights by force, terror and deceit.  This is what I swore to do when I took my oath. Our enemies are both foreign and domestic.

10.    This is the easiest possible criticism that someone can make: “You should have done more, or you should have done something different.”  The set of things we don’t do is infinitely larger that the set we choose to do.  Our first order of business is to seek and to promote understanding so that we will be wise in the few things we choose to do.

11.    Finally, I told Alix that the reputation of America-mostly to other Americans-was a vital concern.  It is our own self-opinion of what America stands for that is at issue.  It was correctly reported that I have no particular fondness for our enemy-but I would and have behaved correctly and ethically in regard to him for our sake.

Yours truly,                                                Bryce Lefever”

In this Letter Lefever apparently is saying that “harsh” techniques are sometimes effective, and that they are, in many cases, not harmful, and therefore cannot be considered to be “torture.” Lefever similarly told the PENS task force that they shouldn’t assume that SERE-based techniques would be harmful to US detainees because, he claimed, they were character-building for US troops who went through SERE:

“When I brought up the idea of harm, and what is harm, it fell on deaf ears. I pointed out that behavioral and psychological techniques used in training our high-risk-of-capture students in Survival Schools [SERE] are viewed as vital, necessary, good, and for the greater good. Psychologists are strong proponents of these techniques even though they inflict psychological and physical pain. Yet the very same behaviors are proscribed by the Department of Defense and viewed as harmful when applied to America’s prisoners.”

This new letter helps clarify his claim to the PENS listserv. His argument is that, because these SERE-based techniques are not “harmful,” they are not torture.

” I was waterboarded in 1990…. However, I was not harmed by the experience…. My general thesis was, if something does not harm you, can you call it torture? “

Therefore psychologists, ethically-bound as they are to “do no harm,” can ethically adopt waterboarding or any other SERE-based techniques. Because of this reasoning, he can claim that he never used or witnessed “torture.” Not when he was a SERE psychologist witnessing SERE techniques used on US service members , one presumes. And not when he trained interrogators in Afghanistan. Given his caveats, we are still left wondering what techniques he did use in Afghanistan. Lefever says he only used “rapport-building.” However, we now know that the abuses in Guantanamo from 2003 on were often described as “rapport-building.” Thus, we are left wondering which “non-harmful” techniques he taught US interrogators in Afghanistan.

Another very important element of this letter is that it confirms the extensive collaboration between the APA and the military in the creation of the PENS task force. Lefveer tells us:

“I was given a voice in this important debate.  This occurred by my appointment to the PENS Taskforce in 2005.  This appointment was officially requested by my Specialty Leader.  It was sanctioned by the Navy.”

Lefever here tells us that he, a member of the task force was “officially requested” by a military official and was officially sanctioned by the Navy. This puts the lie to any claim that APA leaders selected the task force. Rather, they merely ratified choices “officially requested” by military officials. They thus surrendered the association’s ethics decision-making to the military.

Lefever, in his sincerity, further informs us that “human rights” are divorced from “ethics” in the real world. While human rights are concerned about the rights of individuals, Lefever makes clear that he feels an ethical obligation to ride roughshod over those rights in order to protect “the peaceful, moral, productive citizen.” He shows a profound misunderstanding of the fundamentals of our criminal justice system when he state, and his willingness to dispense with many of the protections that protect our freedoms:

“Even those accused of committing these acts, though presumed innocent, are deprived of their liberty for the benefit and safety of society.”

Perhaps most chillingly, Lefever concludes his discussion of the flaws and dangers of “human rights” and of pacifism by stating “Our enemies are both foreign and domestic.” Given the totality of the Letter, it certainly is reasonable to wonder if “pacifists” and “human rights” advocates are among those domestic enemies he has sworn to fight. Safe to say, few even among the APA leadership would openly support such views.

In putting Bryce Lefever, along with the other military-intelligence members, on the PENS task force and making them their “ethics” policy-makers, and in keeping their participation secret, the APA demonstrated the extremes to which they were willing to go to do the Bush administration’s bidding.

With a new administration in Washington, the APA is busy trying to scrub their recent history. They may even rescind the PENS report, defended so vigorously for years, that resulted from this flawed process. But no mere policy change can be sufficient without a detailed understanding of how and why the nation’s largest organization of psychologists created this obviously flawed and unethical “ethics” process. Four organizations –  Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Psychologists for an Ethical APA, and Physicians for Human Rights — have so far called for independent investigations of APA-Bush administration ties. This investigation is necessary to begin the process of reforming an organization that has gone so far astray. The investigation must then be followed by changes in organizational structures and personnel to reduce the chances of a recurrence of flawed policy-making in the wake of the next national crisis.

May 17th, 2009