Responses to the APA Board Open Letter on Interrogations Controversy
June 21st, 2009
Last week the American Psychological Association Board issued a statement on the role of psychologists and interrogations. There has been much discussion of this statement on various psychologist listservs. Since each listserv has a limited audience, I put out a call for statements to be posted together. Here is what I have received so far. [I have already posted a response from bioethicist Steven Miles.]
Note to APA.
Dear Colleagues:
In reviewing the APA position on psychologists who work to assist agencies involved with inhumane and coercive means of interrogation several points seem paramountThe first is that a professional claim for the right to practice is established by their commitment to the values that designate their work as responsibly for the public good. That standard distinguishes a profession from other guilds that seek solely the well being of their practitioners or of their benefactors. By this measure APA has failed.
Second, the ethical standards of a profession cannot justifiably be violated by the excuse of serving one’s supervisor, one’s client or one’s political leaders. That standard was established at Nuremburg. APA has not held to this standard.
Third, psychology as a discipline has struggled against a popular image that it is and can be used for the manipulation of people’s behavior without regard to their wishes. The APA stance on coercive interrogation has diminished the public image.
Finally, “I did not know” is a very dubious professional excuse. A professional has the obligation to find out whether rationales offered to justify egregious behavior, “worst of the worst” “terrorist” “conduits for a war of terror against others” “needed to save lives” are in fact something more than a manipulation of pop culture by those who would justify cruelty and war in support of false claims. Here again, APA has shown a willingness not to investigate the rationales used to recruit psychologists into clearly barbaric applications of their knowledge and skills.
APA has not helped our profession in the issue of participation in coercive interrogation. Its officers owe the public and its membership an apology.
Sincerely,
Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, The University of California
Professor, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center
494 Cragmont Ave.
Berkeley, Ca 94708
Ph/fax 510-526-0876http://marcpilisuk.com/bio.html
******************************************
APA should make a formal announcement that it is commissioning investigations by multidisciplinary experts in the field of Psychology ethics of all identified and suspected Psychologists (APA members and APA non-members) for ethics violations . Membership in APA of alleged violators does not matter because the intergrity of Psychology has been stained, and APA should assume the role of restoring our good name as a profession, and its own reputation as a leading organization of ethical psychologists. APA should publicly announce the names of the ethics investigators (unlike how the membership of the PENS Task Force was handled) and disseminate the results of investigations to relevant congressional committees and chairpersons, the White House, and the respective state licensing boards of all persons under investigation. That would be a start in helping to restore Psychology’s reputation and the integrity of APA’s Governance.I agree with Dr. Miles that APA should completely repudiate the PENS Task Force, and an openly acknowledge that the PENS Task Force was riddled with conflicts of interest. The honorable thing for Dr. Behnke to do is resign. In the absence of that he should be asked to resign his position as Director of the Ethics Office. I also think it is time to consider calling for the replacement of many if not all of the non-elected officers and leadership of the APA.Bob Parker PhD******************************************The APA statement of “profound regret” seem heartfelt enough, but remarkably absent of analysis or reflection; a severe case of what Jules Henry used to term “lack of circumspection”.
The big silence of course, is that it totally elides the central issue of why APA as an institution was steadfastly committed to enabling, denying, defending and obfuscating the involvement of psychologists in this abuse. The APA letter states that “countless” psychologists in the military and intelligence sectors behaved ethically and a few did not, invoking the same “bad apple” paradigm that was asserted in the Abu Ghraib investigations and in the South African Truth and Reconciliation hearings for that matter. The issue is transformed into a moral drama, where we can righteously proclaim that even one instance of torture is one too many.
Until APA can get past its bias for de-contextaulized, individualistic explanation, it will never begin to see the structural links between psychology and the military that made this abuse all but certain. I’m not holding my breath.
Best,
Jim Statman
James M. Statman, Ph.D
Chief of Party
Zimbabwe HIV & AIDS Partnership Project
Harare, Zimbabwe******************************************
I’ve spent the morning fielding disapproving emails from the former presidents of several APA divisions, including Division 39, for my posting the letter from the APA Board of Directors accompanied by the following, on several other professional lists :“The below letter by the APA Board of Directors, purporting to address the issues associated with psychologists’ involvements in so-called “enhanced interrogations” of so-called “enemy combatants” (read: torture of people designated as outside of the protections of American law and the Geneva Conventions) can only be seen as a continuation of bad-faith disinformation and cover-up, in my opinion.”
Their comments took me to task for:
“bad manners”; for my “editorializing”; for my ‘tone” (self-righteous); my lack of appreciation of “complexity and ambiguity”; and not being sufficiently “thoughtful” as someone with “the seniority implied in your email signature requires that you hold yourself to a high standard.”
I responded to them as follows:
“I welcome your response, as I think that the more the issue is talked about, the more likely the entire truth will come to be known. With all due respect, I must disagree with [the characterization of] the plethora of information that has been snowballing for years (beginning with responses to the whitewashing 2005 PENS Report) and from a great many quarters and multitude of sources, as merely “one article accurate” (sic); [Bryant] Welch’s article is just the latest of a great many, both from outside, as well as inside the APA, now approaching some of its highest reaches.”
And:
” I’m sure that you know that I like and respect you, so it pains me to receive this message from you. I double-checked my earlier message replies, and see that, as I’d originally thought, [the dissenting] response did in fact go to all the lists, so I didn’t see any reason not to continue, what I hope is an open dialogue on the issues. [Your email]f eels to me like an attempt to close that down. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with posting my opinion, which I clearly intentionally stated as such. I do understand that my opinion is not one that everyone will appreciate, or agree with, though I feel certain that I know you well enough to think that you would agree that my right to state my opinion as such is something we would all support.
I do feel unequivocally that clinical psychologists and psychoanalysts and those in the treating professions have absolutely no place in participating in the torture or mistreatment of anyone, which it seems clear that the APA and psychologists have been centrally involved in. I do feel let down by the APA and the Division on these important matters. I do feel that there has been, to say the least, a less than forthright response to these matters, and one that I feel sadly deviates from the ethical and humanistic ideals of the profession. I don’t write any of that easily or lightly, and it pains me to think this. I know that you know that there are many others whom we both respect who feel similarly. It is hard to not sound indignant and outraged about what I feel has been a misuse of the profession.”
Best,
Stefan
P.S. It should be noted that one of the former APA Division Presidents who were highly critical of what I’d written about the letter from the APA Board, in response to my answer to them, sent a follow-up email characterizing their initial reaction as an “over-reaction and ill-considered”.
—Stefan R. Zicht, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist and Psychoanalyst
Co-Director
Manhattan Institute for Psychoanalysis
80 Broad Street, Suite 902
New York, NY 10004
http://www.manhattanpsychoanalysis.com
—
Past-President, Division of Psychoanalysis, New York State Psychological Association (NYSPA)******************************************
“I usually just read the email on this list, but I am also disturbed by the spin being taken by the APA Board of Directors in their recent letter. First, they are trying to place the blame on the actions of a few unnamed psychologists rather than addressing the action (or inaction) of the leadership and staff of APA. Second, they are taking credit for positions on torture which were forced upon them by the actions of the membership. When are they going to admit some responsibility for actions which have cast a bad light on all of psychology? Is there anything we can do about this?”Rhoda Unger, Ph.D.
Resident Scholar
Women’s Studies Research Center
Brandeis University (MS 079)
******************************************
Regarding APA Board letter on involvement of psychologists in torture
The Ethics of Preparing Soldiers to Return to Combat
The APA Board statement failed to mention another even more prevalent way that psychologists participate in unethical activities for their government. When soldiers are having strong emotional reactions to killing and injuring other human beings, they are often “treated” by psychologists. A major role for these psychologists is to help the soldier overcome concerns, which reflect their basic humanity, and get them back to the business of war. That business, which military psychologists provide support for, involves killing, maiming, inflicting pain, and creating refugees, orphans, and psychological dysfunction. War is essentially torture for hundreds of thousands of people.
Neither Iraq, Afghanistan, nor Pakistan has attacked the U.S. or its allies. All psychologists who participate directly or indirectly in the current U.S. wars and in war crimes should be held accountable for their unethical behavior, expelled from APA, and be stripped of their licenses to practice psychology.
It is appropriate that the board’s letter concludes by reminding us of psychology’s longstanding commitment to the protection of human welfare. When it comes to causing pain and killing people, psychology must set a higher standard than the American government. We should be leaders and not followers.
Michael D. Knox, Ph.D.
APA FellowDistinguished Professor of Mental Health Law and Policy Distinguished Professor of Medicine Distinguished Professor of Global Health Distinguished Professor of Psychology Distinguished Professor of Aging Studies
College of Behavioral and Community Sciences University of South FloridaTampa, FL
******************************************
Entry Filed under: APA, Accountability, Interrogation, Psychology, Torture