Posts filed under 'Psychology'

Benjamin: Waterboarding for dummies

Mark Benjamin has put together all the chilling details on the CIA’s application of waterboarding from the publicly released documents. The details make clear that CIA waterboarding bore little relationship to that used in the Navy SERE School. BTW, Jeffrey Kaye recently revealed an internal JPRA memo showing that the agency decided that waterboarding was far from safe for its soldier-students:

Waterboarding for dummies
Internal CIA documents reveal a meticulous protocol that was far more brutal than Dick Cheney’s “dunk in the water”

By Mark Benjamin

Self-proclaimed waterboarding fan Dick Cheney called it a no-brainer in a 2006 radio interview: Terror suspects should get a “a dunk in the water.” But recently released internal documents reveal the controversial “enhanced interrogation” practice was far more brutal on detainees than Cheney’s description sounds, and was administered with meticulous cruelty.

Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney “specially designed” to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner’s nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding “session.” Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to “dam the runoff” and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee’s mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second “applications” of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee’s nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.

“This is revolting and it is deeply disturbing,” said Dr. Scott Allen, co-director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at Brown University who has reviewed all of the documents for Physicians for Human Rights. “The so-called science here is a total departure from any ethics or any legitimate purpose. They are saying, ‘This is how risky and harmful the procedure is, but we are still going to do it.’ It just sounds like lunacy,” he said. “This fine-tuning of torture is unethical, incompetent and a disgrace to medicine.”

These torture guidelines were contained in a ream of internal government documents made public over the past year, including a legal review of Bush-era CIA interrogations by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility released late last month.

Though public, the hundreds of pages of documents authorizing or later reviewing the agency’s “enhanced interrogation program” haven’t been mined for waterboarding details until now. While Bush-Cheney officials defended the legality and safety of waterboarding by noting the practice has been used to train U.S. service members to resist torture, the documents show that the agency’s methods went far beyond anything ever done to a soldier during training. U.S. soldiers, for example, were generally waterboarded with a cloth over their face one time, never more than twice, for about 20 seconds, the CIA admits in its own documents.

These memos show the CIA went much further than that with terror suspects, using huge and dangerous quantities of liquid over long periods of time. The CIA’s waterboarding was “different” from training for elite soldiers, according to the Justice Department document released last month. “The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed,” the document notes. In soldier training, “The interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth (on a soldier’s face) in a controlled manner,” DOJ wrote. “By contrast, the agency interrogator … continuously applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose.”

One of the more interesting revelations in the documents is the use of a saline solution in waterboarding. Why? Because the CIA forced such massive quantities of water into the mouths and noses of detainees, prisoners inevitably swallowed huge amounts of liquid – enough to conceivably kill them from hyponatremia, a rare but deadly condition in which ingesting enormous quantities of water results in a dangerously low concentration of sodium in the blood. Generally a concern only for marathon runners , who on extremely rare occasions drink that much water, hyponatremia could set in during a prolonged waterboarding session. A waterlogged, sodium-deprived prisoner might become confused and lethargic, slip into convulsions, enter a coma and die.

Therefore, “based on advice of medical personnel,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005, memo authorizing continued use of waterboarding, “the CIA requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyponatremia.”

The agency used so much water there was also another risk: pneumonia resulting from detainees inhaling the fluid forced into their mouths and noses. Saline, the CIA argued, might reduce the risk of pneumonia when this occurred.

“The detainee might aspirate some of the water, and the resulting water in the lungs might lead to pneumonia,” Bradbury noted in the same memo. “To mitigate this risk, a potable saline solution is used in the procedure.”

That particular Bradbury memo laid out a precise and disturbing protocol for what went on in each waterboarding session. The CIA used a “specially designed” gurney for waterboarding, Bradbury wrote. After immobilizing a prisoner by strapping him down, interrogators then tilted the gurney to a 10-15 degree downward angle, with the detainee’s head at the lower end. They put a black cloth over his face and poured water, or saline, from a height of 6 to 18 inches, documents show. The slant of the gurney helped drive the water more directly into the prisoner’s nose and mouth. But the gurney could also be tilted upright quickly, in the event the prisoner stopped breathing.

Detainees would be strapped to the gurney for a two-hour “session.” During that session, the continuous flow of water onto a detainee’s face was not supposed to exceed 40 seconds during each pour. Interrogators could perform six separate 40-second pours during each session, for a total of four minutes of pouring. Detainees could be subjected to two of those two-hour sessions during a 24-hour period, which adds up to eight minutes of pouring. But the CIA’s guidelines say interrogators could pour water over the nose and mouth of a detainee for 12 minutes total during each 24-hour period. The documents do not explain the extra four minutes to get to 12.

Interrogators were instructed to pour the water when a detainee had just exhaled so that he would inhale during the pour. An interrogator was also allowed to force the water down a detainee’s mouth and nose using his hands. “The interrogator may cup his hands around the detainee’s nose and mouth to dam the runoff,” the Bradbury memo notes. “In which case it would not be possible for the detainee to breathe during the application of the water.”

“We understand that water may enter – and accumulate in – the detainee’s mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing,” the memo admits.

Should a prisoner stop breathing during the procedure, the documents instructed interrogators to rapidly tilt the gurney to an upright position to help expel the saline. “If the detainee is not breathing freely after the cloth is removed from his face, he is immediately moved to a vertical position in order to clear the water from his mouth, nose, and nasopharynx,” Bradbury wrote. “The gurney used for administering this technique is specially designed so that this can be accomplished very quickly if necessary.”

Documents drafted by CIA medical officials in 2003, about a year after the agency started using the waterboard, describe more aggressive procedures to get the water out and the subject breathing. “An unresponsive subject should be righted immediately,” the CIA Office of Medical Services ordered in its Sept. 4, 2003, medical guidelines for interrogations. “The interrogator should then deliver a sub-xyphoid thrust to expel the water.” (That’s a blow below the sternum, similar to the thrust delivered to a chocking victim in the Heimlich maneuver.)

But even those steps might not force the prisoner to resume breathing. Waterboarding, according to the Bradbury memo, could produce “spasms of the larynx” that might keep a prisoner from breathing “even when the application of water is stopped and the detainee is returned to an upright position.” In such cases, Bradbury wrote, “a qualified physician would immediately intervene to address the problem and, if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy.” The agency required that “necessary emergency medical equipment” be kept readily available for that procedure. The documents do not say if doctors ever performed a tracheotomy on a prisoner.

The doctors were also present to monitor the detainee “to ensure that he does not develop respiratory distress.” A leaked 2007 report from the International Committee of the Red Cross says that meant the detainee’s finger was fixed with a pulse oxymeter, a device that measures the oxygen saturation level in the blood during the procedure. Doctors like Allen say this would allow interrogators to push a detainee close to death – but help them from crossing the line. “It is measuring in real time the oxygen content in the blood second by second,” Allen explained about the pulse oxymeter. “It basically allows them to push these prisoners more to the edge. With that, you can keep going. This is calibration of harm by health professionals.”

One of the weirdest details in the documents is the revelation that the agency placed detainees on liquid diets prior to the use of waterboarding. That’s because during waterboarding, “a detainee might vomit and then aspirate the emesis,” Bradbury wrote. In other words, breathe in his own vomit. The CIA recommended the use of Ensure Plus for the liquid diet.

Plowing through hundreds of pages of these documents is an unsettling experience. On one level, the detailed instructions can be seen as helping to carry out kinder, gentler waterboarding, with so much care and attention given to making sure detainees didn’t stop breathing, get pneumonia, breathe in their own vomit or die. But of course dead detainees tell no tales, so the CIA needed to keep many of its prisoners alive. It should be noted, though, that six human rights groups in 2007 released a report showing that 39 people who appeared to have gone into the CIA’s secret prison network haven’t shown up since. The careful attention to detail in the documents was also used to provide legal cover for the harsh and probably illegal interrogation tactics.

As brutal as the waterboarding process was, the memos also reveal that the Bush-era Justice Department authorized the CIA to use it in combination with other forms of torture. Specifically, a detainee could be kept awake for more than seven days straight by shackling his hands in a standing position to a bolt in the ceiling so he could never sit down. The agency diapered and hand-fed its detainees during this period before putting them on the waterboard. Another memo from Bradbury, also from 2005, says that in between waterboarding sessions, a detainee could be physically slammed into a wall, crammed into a small box, placed in “stress positions” to increase discomfort and doused with cold water, among other things.

The CIA’s waterboarding regimen was so excruciating, the memos show, that agency officials found themselves grappling with an unexpected development: detainees simply gave up and tried to let themselves drown. “In our limited experience, extensive sustained use of the waterboard can introduce new risks,” the CIA’s Office of Medical Services wrote in its 2003 memo. “Most seriously, for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways and loss of consciousness.”

The agency’s medical guidelines say that after a case of “psychological resignation” by a detainee on the waterboard, an interrogator had to get approval from a CIA doctor before doing it again.

The memo also contains a last, little-noticed paragraph that may be the most disturbing of all. It seems to say that the detainees subjected to waterboarding were also guinea pigs. The language is eerily reminiscent of the very reasons the Nuremberg Code was written in the first place. That paragraph reads as follows:

“NOTE: In order to best inform future medical judgments and recommendations, it is important that every application of the waterboard be thoroughly documented: how long each application (and the entire procedure) lasted, how much water was used in the process (realizing that much splashes off), how exactly the water was applied, if a seal was achieved, if the naso- or oropharynx was filled, what sort of volume was expelled, how long was the break between applications, and how the subject looked between each treatment.”

Add comment March 9th, 2010

Physicians for Human Rights statement on American Psychological Association ethics changes

Physicians for Human Rights has issued a statement on the American Psychological Association’s dropping of the infamous 1.02 “Nuremberg Defense” from its ethics code:

American Psychological Association Closes Loophole in Ethics Code, but More Code Reforms Needed

Media Contacts:
Stephen Greene
sgreene [at] phrusa [dot] org
617-909-9160
Benjamin Greenberg
bgreenberg [at] phrusa [dot] org
617-510-3417

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) applauds last week’s action by the American Psychological Association (APA) amending section 1.02 of its 2002 code of professional ethics. Since 2006, PHR and the Coalition for Ethical Psychology have been campaigning for the APA to remove language from its ethics code allowing a psychologist to violate other provisions of the code if done to comply with “law, regulations, or other governing legal authority.” The new language restores the 1992 version of the code, which prohibits use of the standard “to justify or defend violating human rights.”"This move by the APA is an important step towards meaningful ethics reform, and PHR’s constituents and allies made it happen,” states Frank Donaghue, Chief Executive Officer of PHR. “However, the APA has more to do before its standards of professional ethics are fully restored.”

Section 1.02 was inserted into the APA ethics code in August 2002, and was used by both the APA and the Bush Administration to allow the participation of psychologists in the “enhanced interrogation” program, in which detainees were systematically abused and tortured under the supervision of health professionals. PHR is calling for the APA to also reform section 8.05 of the 2002 ethics code, which allows research on human subjects without their consent if such research comports with law or regulations.

March 3rd, 2010

American Psychological Association removes infamous “Nuremberg Defense” from ethics code, leaves other ethics loopholes

Last week, the American Psychological Association (APA) finally revised its ethics code so that it no longer contained the so-called “Nuremberg Defense,” allowing dispensing with professional ethics when they conflicted with “law, regulations, other governing legal authority.” This clause was added in 2002, at the heyday of the Bush administration.  APA dissidents, retired military personnel, ethicists,and human rights advocates have long pushed for its removal.

A number of military psychologists who served in or trained the Behavioral Science Consultation Team at Guantanamo (BSCT) had opposed change in this code. Not coincidentally, this section had been emphasized in the instructions for the BSCTs and in the APA’s report of the 2005 task force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) where the APA let military-intelligence psychologists create ethics policy for the association.

The ethics code 1.02 has stated since 2002:

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority.

When the change goes into effect in June, this clause will essentially revert to the pre-2002 wording:

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights

The removal should be a cause for celebration. However, like every change in APA’s policies on psychologists providing interrogation support, this change is too little too late. APA leadership waited till over a year after the end of the Bush regime and its “enhanced interrogation” torture program before changing this clause which provided protection for psychologists aiding the torturers. While the Justice Department’s OLC torture memos provided legal protection, the APA policy complemented that protection by providing protection from future charges that psychologists aiding detainee abuse violated professional ethics.

While the infamous 1.02 is gone from the ethics code, the less well known but equally disturbing section 8.05 governing research without informed consent is still there. It allows dispensing with informed consent, the bedrock of professional ethics, whenever “law or federal or institutional regulations” say it is OK:

Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or reputation , and confidentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants’ employability, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations. [emphasis added]

Thus, research on detainees would be acceptable as long as institutional regulations (from the CIA or Defense Department, say) gave permission.

If the APA were really interested in removing loopholes in the ethics code, they would have changed this clause without prodding. I have been calling for change in this and another problematic research ethics clause for years. Unfortunately, the battle to remove loopholes in the ethics code allowing abuse will continue into the indefinite future.

March 1st, 2010

Rubenstein-Xenakis: Doctors Without Morals

In a New York Times Op Ed, Leonard Rubenstein and Brig. Gen.  [ret] Stephen Xenakis discuss the contrast between the investigation of the torture lawyers and the lack of any investigation of the torture physicians and psychologists:

Doctors Without Morals

By Leonard S. Rubenstein and Stephen N. Xenakis

After five years of investigation, the Justice Department has released its findings regarding the government lawyers who authorized waterboarding and other forms of torture during the interrogation of suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. The report’s conclusion, that the lawyers exercised poor judgment but were not guilty of professional misconduct, is questionable at best. Still, the review reflects a commitment to a transparent investigation of professional behavior.

In contrast, the government doctors and psychologists who participated in and authorized the torture of detainees have escaped discipline, accountability or even internal investigation.

It is hardly news that medical staff at the C.I.A. and the Pentagon played a critical role in developing and carrying out torture procedures. Psychologists and at least one doctor designed or recommended coercive interrogation methods including sleep deprivation, stress positions, isolation and waterboarding. The military’s Behavioral Science Consultation Teams evaluated detainees, consulted their medical records to ascertain vulnerabilities and advised interrogators when to push harder for intelligence information.

Psychologists designed a program for new arrivals at Guantánamo that kept them in isolation to “enhance and exploit” their “disorientation and disorganization.” Medical officials monitored interrogations and ordered medical interventions so they could continue even when the detainee was in obvious distress. In one case, an interrogation log obtained by Time magazine shows, a medical corpsman ordered intravenous fluids to be administered to a dehydrated detainee even as loud music was played to deprive him of sleep.

When the C.I.A.’s inspector general challenged these “enhanced interrogation” methods, the agency’s Office of Medical Services was brought in to determine, in consultation with the Justice Department, whether the techniques inflicted severe mental pain or suffering, the legal definition of torture. Once again, doctors played a critical role, providing professional opinions that no severe pain or suffering was being inflicted.

According to Justice Department memos released last year, the medical service opined that sleep deprivation up to 180 hours didn’t qualify as torture. It determined that confinement in a dark, small space for 18 hours a day was acceptable. It said detainees could be exposed to cold air or hosed down with cold water for up to two-thirds of the time it takes for hypothermia to set in. And it advised that placing a detainee in handcuffs attached by a chain to a ceiling, then forcing him to stand with his feet shackled to a bolt in the floor, “does not result in significant pain for the subject.”

The service did allow that waterboarding could be dangerous, and that the experience of feeling unable to breathe is extremely frightening. But it noted that the C.I.A. had limited its use to 12 applications over two sessions within 24 hours, and to five days in any 30-day period. As a result, the lawyers noted the office’s “professional judgment that the use of the waterboard on a healthy individual subject to these limitations would be ‘medically acceptable.’”

The medical basis for these opinions was nonexistent. The Office of Medical Services cited no studies of individuals who had been subjected to these techniques. Its sources included a wilderness medical manual, the National Institute of Mental Health Web site and guidelines from the World Health Organization.

The only medical source cited by the service was a book by Dr. James Horne, a sleep expert at Loughborough University in Britain; when Dr. Horne learned that his book had been used as a reference, he said the C.I.A. had distorted his findings and misrepresented his research, and that its conclusions on sleep deprivation were nonsense.

Dr. Horne had used healthy volunteers who were subject to no other stresses and could withdraw at any time, while C.I.A. and Pentagon interrogators used a broad array of stresses in combination on the detainees. Sleep deprivation, he said, mixed with pain-inducing positioning, intimidation and a host of other stresses, would probably exhaust the body’s defense mechanisms, cause physical collapse and worsen existing illness. And that doesn’t begin to acknowledge the dire psychological consequences.

The shabbiness of the medical judgments, though, pales in comparison to the ethical breaches by the doctors and psychologists involved. Health professionals have a responsibility extending well beyond nonparticipation in torture; the historic maxim is, after all, “First do no harm.” These health professionals did the polar opposite.

Nevertheless, no agency — not the Pentagon, the C.I.A., state licensing boards or professional medical societies — has initiated any action to investigate, much less discipline, these individuals. They have ignored the gross and appalling violations by medical personnel. This is an unconscionable disservice to the thousands of ethical doctors and psychologists in the country’s service. It is not too late to begin investigations. They should start now.

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

Leonard S. Rubenstein is a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Stephen N. Xenakis is a psychiatrist and a retired Army brigadier general.

March 1st, 2010

Torture psychologists wanted mock burial authorization. Yoo refused

Marcy Wheeler — emptywheel – has apparently figured out that the OPR report indicates that the CIA’s torture psychologists, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, wanted to use a mock burial, but that that was too much for John Yoo, unless he was given additional time to dream up a legal cover. Raw Story reports:

Bush’s torture psychologists wanted to use ‘mock burials’: report

By Raw Story

Two psychologists working on the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogation techniques pushed for the use of “mock burials” on terror suspects, according to documents released by the Department of Justice.Blogger Marcy Wheeler reports that the Department of Justice rejected a request from psychologists Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell to give the CIA the power to pretend to bury terror suspects during interrogations in the years after the 9/11 attacks.

A report (PDF, 289 pages) from the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, released last Friday, documents ten interrogation techniques approved by Bush administration lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

But Wheeler notes that the psychologists had requested twelve techniques. One of those two techniques has already been revealed to be prolonged diapering. Wheeler uncovers evidence that the other one was mock burial.

“There must have been significant discussion about the decision to exclude mock burial from the [list of approved enhanced interrogation techniques], because the reference to its exclusion in the report itself (PDF page 60 in the Final Report) includes a page and a half of redactions following the discussion of leaving it out,” Wheeler reports.

Wheeler also suggests that the revelations about mock burial could be potentially incriminating for the CIA.

“Any legal discussion of why mock burial would be a problem would focus on how torture statutes prohibit the threat of imminent death,” Wheeler writes.

“Yet after mock burial was specifically excluded as a torture technique, CIA torturers went on to threaten detainees with a power drill and a gun. In other words, someone at that CIA had already been told, specifically, that they could not use the threat of imminent death on detainees. But on at least two occasions, they did so anyway.”

A CIA inspector general’s report, released last summer, documented cases of CIA interrogators using “mock executions” to intimidate suspects, including one instance in which a gun was fired in an adjoining room to make a suspect think another prisoner had been shot.

Jessen and Mitchell, the two psychologists reportedly behind the idea to carry out mock burials, came from SERE, or “Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape,” a military program designed to teach soldiers how to resist torture when captured. They were contracted to work for the CIA after 9/11, and were tasked with teaching CIA interrogators some of the harsh methods they learned to defend against at SERE. The techniques covered by SERE appear to be the basis for the enhanced interrogation program run under the Bush administration.

In 2008, the Pentagon banned the use of SERE techniques in interrogations.

February 25th, 2010

Eidelson: Psychology for Progressive Purposes

Roy Eidelson explains, in a Psychology Today blog post, how psychology can contribute to solving our manifold social problems:

Psychology for Progressive Purposes
Psychology has a crucial role in promoting progressive social change.

By Roy Eidelson

For today’s engaged citizens, there’s no shortage of pressing concerns that demand attention: social and economic inequality, inadequate access to health care, persecution and violence on the basis of belief or group identity, assaults on civil rights and personal dignity, and profound environmental threats to the planet itself.

As president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR), I work with fellow members — psychologists and non-psychologists alike — in a shared venture to confront many of these challenges. A central premise of our efforts is that psychology — the science of human behavior — offers a strong base of knowledge and practice for developing and implementing policies that promote peace, social justice, human rights, and an ecologically sustainable future. We pursue these goals through research, education, intervention, and advocacy.

Real-world application of psychological principles can be a valuable resource for positive social change in a surprisingly wide range of contexts. Such knowledge can:

* Help individuals and groups overcome “us-versus-them” mindsets and build bridges across perceived divides.
* Encourage us to focus on our future collective welfare and to prioritize the broader long-term consequences of our actions instead of short-term self-interest by engaging our pro-social tendencies and moral sentiments.
* Strengthen our capacity to use thoughtful analysis and empathy when evaluating alternatives, and to resist appeals to fear and anger that are designed to cloud our judgment.
* Address misunderstandings and miscommunication, thereby serving to prevent the escalation of conflict and bloodshed; heal the wounds of violence, trauma, and neglect; and avert the transmission of revenge and despair from one generation to the next.

Making meaningful strides in areas like these will require deep understandings of how psychology and politics are inter-related, as well as increased collaboration between psychologists and other social scientists. In this way, psychological knowledge can be used more effectively to identify key features of stubborn social problems and to illuminate potential pathways to progress. Here are several examples.

Over one billion people struggle to survive on less than $1 a day. To reduce chronic poverty, we must confront the prejudices, discrimination, and societal arrangements that promote inequality and limit opportunity for so many. Psychology also highlights the need to reduce the stigma associated with being poor. And since we tend to be most supportive of others when their concerns relate to our own, anti-poverty campaigns are more effective when they communicate how poverty affects us all.

Nuclear weapons could destroy all life on Earth, a horror so great that we bury it from awareness. To eliminate these weapons, it’s important to understand the psychology that motivates us to acquire and retain them. Paradoxically, the desire for greater security spurs countries to want weapons of mass destruction. Overcoming a common attribution error — “our weapons are for protection, but theirs are for aggression” — is therefore crucial for parties to negotiate in good faith toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

Mass killing, torture, gender-based violence, and other human rights violations are a worldwide tragedy. Perpetrators are often driven by psychological factors, including vengeance, blind obedience to authority, the intoxicating effects of power, and the dehumanization and demonization of those who are different. We can counter these abuses by confronting the psychological barriers that too often discourage individuals or nations from intervening. These include fear, apathy, denial, perceived helplessness, and the diffusion of responsibility.

Climate change, population growth, and rising consumption represent a looming ecological catastrophe that imperils all human life. Psychology offers key insights to confront this crisis. Policies can be made more effective by addressing our tendency to focus on the short-term and to disregard critical dangers that grow over time. Another promising strategy involves helping wealthier nations examine how their excessive consumption interferes with the pursuit of important goals and values. The behavioral sciences are directly relevant to the challenges of bringing about large-scale social change.

Poverty, nuclear weapons, human rights violations, and climate change are global problems. But psychologically informed strategies have also proven successful when used in local initiatives. For instance, conflict management training for leaders in deeply-divided communities has curtailed sectarian violence. Intergroup contact and dialogue strategies have also been used effectively to reduce prejudice among participants in community youth programs. Carefully framed public service messages targeting HIV/AIDS prevention in under-served areas have led to sizable decreases in risky behavior. Correcting student misperceptions about the prevalence of heavy drinking has substantially reduced alcohol consumption on college campuses. Programs that provide comparative feedback on residents’ home energy consumption have lessened overall neighborhood energy use. And efforts to foster trust and a sense of shared identity have helped activists and advocacy organizations build broader and more effective coalitions.

But while psychology offers great promise in these spheres and many others, we must also recognize that there are those who regrettably misuse their understanding of human behavior for selfish or destructive purposes. In particular, political, media, and corporate elites at times engage in manipulation to promote everything from unhealthy lifestyles to greater inequality to war. The consequences are often tragic. The members of Psychologists for Social Responsibility believe that bringing greater psychological knowledge to the widest possible audience — policymakers, activists, educators, students, news media, and the general public — is crucial for empowering all of us to pursue socially responsible solutions to the many challenges we face today.

February 25th, 2010

Larry James protsted at Wright State U.

As reported in the campus paper, The Guardian, there was recently a protest at Wright State University of its Dean of the School of Professional Psychology, Dr. Larry James. James, along with Col. Morgan Banks, was inside lecturing to a $2,000 a person workshop on the Psychology of Terrorism:

WSU dean still under fire three years after torture accusations
Wright State professional psychology dean target of protest on campus, failed lawsuits

By Andy Sedlak

A recent campus protest has dragged a Wright State University dean back into the headlines.

Larry C. James, dean of Wright State’s School of Professional Psychology, has been the subject of numerous news stories since arriving on campus, Aug. 1, 2008. A retired Army colonel and recipient of the Bronze Star, James was the chief psychologist at Guantanamo Bay in 2003 and 2007. He held the same title at Abu Ghraib in 2004.

At each of these two facilities, James’ task was to remedy the torture interrogations that dominated news coverage for much of the 2000s. His supervision was far reaching, and James insists the turnaround after his arrival was apparent.

“I was needed to demonstrate and teach interrogators how to go about proper questioning,” James said in a December interview with the Guardian.

He wrote a book, “Fixing Hell,” documenting his experiences. It was released in 2008, the same year he arrived at Wright State.

Since the release of his book, James has become an ongoing target for human rights activists.

Most recently, student demonstrators held a small protest outside the Student Union on Feb. 3. Inside, James led a seminar on the psychology of terrorism.

His critics allege that, while at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, James turned a blind eye toward rampant abuse of the detainees. Additionally, many assert that James abused the right to confidential medical records belonging to the detainees.

“(The protest) was intended to be a visual challenge to Larry James,” said demonstrator Dana Fleetham, a Wright State graduate student. She said the group was “questioning his credibility to host the event and also his credibility as a licensed psychologist.”

Wright State does not denote James’ experience at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib on James’ biography on the school of psychology’s webpage.

Dr. Trudy Bond, a psychologist out of Toledo has been linked to James for the past two years. Against him, Bond filed a complaint with the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in February of 2008. She did so alleging professional misconduct for his roles at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The complaint was dismissed, saying there was no reason to investigate.

Bond filed her complaint in Louisiana because he was issued his license to practice psychology in Louisiana. Larry James is licensed in Louisiana, Ohio and Guam.

Bond filed a complaint in Ohio as well, but it too was closed shortly thereafter.

Bond has appealed three times. Thus far, the LSBEP has denied all of Bond’s attempts. Bond filed suit against the LSBEP for not investigating James. Her case against the board was dismissed as well.

“The code of ethics within the APA and the Ohio Board of Ohio states that as a psychologist, if I have knowledge or information about the unprofessional actions of a psychologist, I am required to report them,” Bond said.

The American Psychological Association’s website reads “The American Psychological Association’s (APA) position on torture is clear and unequivocal: Any direct or indirect participation in any act of torture or other forms of cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment by psychologists is strictly prohibited. There are no exceptions. Such acts as waterboarding, sexual humiliation, stress positions and exploitation of phobias are clear violations of APA’s no torture/no abuse policy.”

James has taken comfort in each ruling against Bond.

“No matter what third party, objective review board or person, they’ve all come to the same conclusion — there’s no probable cause,” James said in an interview with the Dayton Daily News last year. “There’s no detainee, there’s no guard, there’s no psychologist who’s come forward and said, ‘With my own eyes, I’ve seen Dr. James do X, Y or Z.’ ”

Bond agreed to an interview with The Guardian in January. After James’ initial interview in December, his office did not return phone calls seeking a follow-up interview.

Bond’s suit against the Board in Louisiana has now gone to the court of appeals and lawyers are disputing whether or not the trial court rightly dismissed her case against the LSBEP. Oral arguments for the appellate court are scheduled for February 25 in Baton Rouge.

Samantha Naves contributed to this report.

February 17th, 2010

APA and Eidelson spar on LGBT boycott of Manchester-Hyatt

There has been considerable controversy in the American Psychological Association regarding the association’s decision NOT to honor a boycott of the Hyatt hotel in San Diego that APA plans to use for its convention in San Diego next summer. [For background, see Olson & Eidelson's piece here and a  Psychologists for Social Responsibility statement here.]  In December Alice Dreger blogged on the issue for the Hastings Bioethics Forum. APA staff member Kim Kills has posted a response in the comments. In return, Roy Eidelson, President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, has posted a reply to Mills.

I post both Mills’ comments and Eidelson’s reply here. Mills:

The American Psychological Association has been a strong advocate for full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people for nearly 35 years. We are proud of that record of advocacy based on the social science research on sexual orientation and gender identity.

APA has supported legal benefits for same-sex couples since 1997, and civil marriage for same-sex couples since 2004. Most notably, we have adopted policy statements, lobbied Congress in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment, and filed amicus briefs supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples in legal cases in eight states, including California. The APA brief was cited by the California Supreme Court when it ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in May 2008.

While we strongly disagree with Doug Manchester’s position vis-à-vis Proposition 8, APA has decided against joining the boycott based on several important factors that have not changed despite an expected budget surplus: a legally enforceable contract, the convention’s need for a large number of sleeping and meeting rooms, and APA’s intention to use the meeting in San Diego as an opportunity to promote public knowledge about scientific research relevant to marriage equality and communicate clearly where we stand on the issue.

This decision is consistent with that of several other large organizations—the American Public Health Association, the National Education Association and the American Educational Research Association–that are also supportive of LGBT civil rights.

Although honoring the contract is not purely a financial issue, it is important to realize that if APA were to cancel the contract, Mr. Manchester would lose nothing; his hotel would receive a $1 million penalty fee from APA. Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that the Hyatt is the only hotel in the San Diego area (other than hotels we have already booked) that offers the number of sleeping and meeting rooms required by our meeting. In short, canceling the Hyatt contract would put our ability to host the 2010 convention in jeopardy. In addition, there are several facts relevant to the decision regarding a boycott that the Dr. Dreger did not mention: the boycott has been spearheaded by the union Unite/HERE; the hotel is managed by Hyatt, which has a good record on sexual orientation non-discrimination; and the boycott will also affect the hotel’s highly diverse work force at a time when unemployment is high and jobs are difficult to find.

The bottom line is we believe our resources are better devoted to other meaningful and powerful ways to stand up for our values. We see the San Diego convention as an important opportunity to call attention to the social science research on sexual orientation, the abilities of gay and lesbian parents, and the benefits of marriage for all people.

We plan to offer significant convention programming on these topics. We also plan to devote considerable resources to a national media outreach effort to generate coverage of the APA’s support of marriage equality and the benefits of marriage for all people.

APA believes that a boycott, although a strong symbolic gesture, would not achieve the desired results. In summary, APA’s goals are to give our members full information, respect the personal choices of convention attendees, publicize the social science research on sexual orientation, and use APA resources in productive ways that will move forward the cause of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Kim I. Mills
Associate Executive Director
Public & Member Communications
American Psychological Association
Posted by: kmills@apa.org

Eidelson response:

As a spokesperson for the American Psychological Association (APA), Kim Mills offers a series of unconvincing arguments in response to Alice Dreger’s recent essay, “Attention Shoppers: LBGT Rights Apparently Not Worth $6.67 to the American Psychological Association” (http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4260). Mills attempts to defend the refusal of APA leadership to change course regarding plans to use the Manchester Grand Hyatt as the lead headquarters hotel for the August 2010 annual convention in San Diego. As is well known, the hotel’s owner Doug Manchester contributed $125,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign that abolished the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

My reply focuses on several of the specific claims Mills makes.

First, although APA’s past advocacy efforts on behalf of civil rights for LGBT people are commendable, they are no excuse for failing to directly confront the current issues surrounding the Manchester Grand Hyatt. In 2004 APA declared that the association “shall take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same-sex couples.” Such a resolution carries with it responsibilities–otherwise it has no real meaning.

Mills’ claim that APA signed “a legally enforceable contract” provides little in the way of clarity. APA leadership has refused to reveal important details of the contract, including possible clauses relevant to cancellation for cause (e.g., failure to provide a quiet and non-controversial venue). Similarly, the $1 million “penalty fee” has been mentioned repeatedly, but requests for further information about it have gone unanswered. For example, it’s not clear what APA’s financial exposure would be if the Manchester Grand Hyatt were not used as a headquarters hotel but all of its sleeping rooms were filled during the convention anyway. There is also a troubling contrast in priorities worth noting here. When APA recently faced difficulties and embarrassment over errors in its latest publication manual, the association decided to pay as much as $1 million to provide replacement copies. In describing this potential financial loss, APA’s Rhea Farberman explained that it was “important to our long term reputation as a publisher.”

Meanwhile, Mills argues that APA has no choice but to use the Manchester Grand Hyatt because “a large number of sleeping and meeting rooms” are needed for the convention. This claim lacks credibility. A successful convention for APA might indeed bring as many as 15,000 attendees to San Diego in August. However, that is a relatively small number when compared to another event scheduled for San Diego just a month earlier. The annual July Comic-Con convention draws well over 100,000 attendees and uses dozens of local hotels.

At the same time, Mills diverts attention from the real issue when she emphasizes that APA intends to use the convention “as an opportunity to promote public knowledge about scientific research relevant to marriage equality and communicate clearly where we stand on the issue.” This is a laudable plan, but it doesn’t require APA to use the Manchester Grand Hyatt as its lead headquarters hotel (where meetings of the Board of Directors, the Council of Representatives, and other groups are currently scheduled to be held).

Finally, Mills claims that the Manchester Grand Hyatt boycott has been “spearheaded” by UNITE-HERE. This deceptive statement appears to be little more than an attempt to split the boycott organizers, a coalition of LGBT and labor groups–and it’s similar to the strategy adopted by Doug Manchester himself. Not only is this approach dismissive of the LGBT community, no explanation is offered for why APA leadership has adopted such an anti-labor stance. In this regard, it’s noteworthy that in an earlier communication about the Manchester Grand Hyatt, the APA Board encouraged association members to visit the explicitly anti-union websites of Richard Berman, a well-known lobbyist for big business.

In light of the misleading claims Kim Mills makes in responding to Alice Dreger’s essay, it’s rather stunning that she concludes by highlighting this APA goal: “to give our members full information.” Fortunately, many APA members and APA divisions have chosen a different path to knowledge. They are making independent decisions about the Manchester Grand Hyatt boycott, informed by their own core values and principles. I applaud them for doing so.

Sincerely,

Roy Eidelson, Ph.D.
APA Member
reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com

P.S. As president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, an organization unaffiliated with the APA, I welcome readers to review our recent statement on the APA Convention and the Manchester Grand Hyatt: www.psysr.org/apa-manchester.

February 1st, 2010

Aalbers: Letter to American Psychological Association Council: Act on our policy!

Dan Aalbers, one of members of the 2008 American Psychological Association referendum opposing psychologist participation in illegal detention sites has written the APA Council of Representatives protesting the association’s lack of action to implement the policy that was adopted by 59% of the APA members who voted:

Dear Member of the Council of Representatives,

It has been more than a year since the first referendum in our history
passed by a margin of 59 to 41. It has been nearly a year since the
council received a report on the implementation of the referendum, yet
very little has been to implement the referendum. Psychologists
remain at Guantanamo Bay — a camp whose name is synonymous with
torture. The membership voted to walk away from this torture center
but the will of the majority is not being enacted.

At a bare minimum, a letter should be sent to GITMO’s camp commander
that lays out the following instructions in no uncertain terms:

“Please inform all psychologists who are engaged in any activity other
than offering psychotherapy to fellow soldiers that they are in
violation of APA policy. These psychologists will remain in violation
of said policy unless they immediately seek to deploy elsewhere.”

If you believe that voting matters, if you believe that
representatives need to follow the clear instructions of their
constituents please contact me so we can work together to enact the
will of the membership.

Dan Aalbers

January 28th, 2010

Kaye confirms Army Field Manual, Appendix M still used at Guantanamo

Jeff Kaye, at Firedoglake reminds us that the Army Field Manual, Appendix M, allowing sleep deprivation and other abusive techniques, is still in effect. Further, he finds out that interrogations based on these techniques are still occurring at Guantanamo. This post is evidently the first of a series on the Army Field manual:

Torture Confirmed at Guantanamo; Army Field Manual Codified Abuse

By Jeff Kaye

Recently, it occurred to me that, with all the debate or controversy over the Obama administration’s policies on torture, no one had asked the military, and in particular those running America’s “terror” prisons, if they had been using the Army Field Manual’s Appendix M. So, I called Guantanamo’s Public Affairs Officer, Lt. Commander Brook DeWalt, and asked him if Appendix M interrogations had taken place at Guantanamo.

This question may have more than intrinsic interest, as the administration has now announced that it is pursuing moving over a hundred Guantanamo “detainees” to a prison in Illinois. (The actions of Umar Abdulmutallab on an American Airliners jet on Christmas Day may have thrown a monkey-wrench into the “closing” of Guantanamo, but, most likely, Obama’s plans will move forward.)

Lt. Commander DeWalt took a few days to get confirmation, but when he spoke to me on December 11, he confirmed that while “not routine,” Appendix M interrogations are conducted at Guantanamo “as authorized,” “in accordance with DOD directives and U.S. law.” He would not go into operational specifics. Officer-In-Charge of the 4th Public Affairs Detachment (Guantanamo Forward), Lt. Col. James Crabtree, whom was also contacted, declined to be more forthcoming about dates when asked for more specific dates of operational usage.

Appendix M is the portion of the 2006 revised Army Field Manual that covers “unlawful enemy combatants” who don’t meet the U.S. government’s criteria for Geneva treatment as prisoners of war. Obama doesn’t want to call them illegal combatants anymore, so the government doesn’t call them anything, except people with lesser rights.

Famously, President Obama has proclaimed, as did his predecessor, that he was against torture, and was banning it in his administration. As a result, the Obama administration closed down the CIA secret black site prisons, though not, as it turns out, all secret black site prisons.

Obama also rescinded the torture memos of Bybee/Yoo/Bradbury/Addington/Levin, and replaced them with an interrogation policy oriented around the Bush-era Army Field Manual (AFM), whose latest incarnation was the brainchild of Donald Rumsfeld’s assistant, Stephen Cambone. At first, the new AFM was supposed to have a secret annex, so the “worst of the worst” could be grilled in U.S. military prisons, and not have any bleeding hearts or Al Qaeda types getting wind of what was going on.

But, brilliantly, one has to admit, they hit on the idea of simply laying the document openly among the people, and when there was no protest, and the politicians dutifully saluted, the new torture policy was ready to go. First, they had to line up some right-wingers to protest the new AFM was “too soft,” especially for use by the CIA. Then, they had to conduct a PR campaign that sold the AFM to the public, as humane, Geneva-compliant, and the negation of former Bush torture policies. Hence hoary old Senator Feinstein was rolled out to give the stamp of approval from “pragmatic liberal” types. No one else around the Beltway would peep boo from the left.

Appendix M was certainly not the old “enhanced interrogation techniques,” but they weren’t exactly not them either. The new AFM was supposed to be better than the old one, like any new product, but in fact, old prohibitions against abusive interrogation techniques were removed, and in some cases, the techniques formally reintroduced. An example of the latter is sleep deprivation, which used to be explicitly proscribed, but is now part of Appendix M procedure. “Fear Up” procedures are strengthened. Modes of sensory deprivation are introduced. The ban against drugs that cause serious derangement of the senses or temporary psychosis is replaced by a ban against drugs that cause “permanent damage.” Stress positions are, notably, not explicitly banned.

Next: “Will Military Torture Be Transferred to the United States?”

January 4th, 2010

Previous Posts


Pages

Calendar

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Posts by Month

Posts by Category