Several prominent psychologists have resigned from the American Psychological Association in protest over the organisation’s position on interrogation and torture. Those leaving include Beth Shinn, former President of two APA Divisions; Ken Pope, former chair of the Ethics Committee, and Bryant Welch, who was founder and Director of the Practice Directorate. The APA say that 67 people have resigned; some 350 names have pledged to withhold their fees at www.withholdapadues.com.
The APA position remains controversial, despite recent statements (see box below). The organisation has stopped short of prohibiting psychologists from any participation whatsoever in military interrogations, saying in their FAQs at www.apa.org/releases/faqinterrogation.html that ‘by staying engaged, APA is able to work with the many parties, both within and outside of the military, who are dedicated to preventing torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.’
Many critics still feel this is not good enough. Stephen Soldz, an outspoken opponent of the APA position and Director of the Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis, told us: ‘The APA position is deeply disingenuous given that the historical record is that psychologists, designed, conducted, standardised, and supervised abusive interrogations. There is not one instance in the public record of a psychologist taking action to oppose abuse ordered or condoned by his/her command. The APA knows this. Yet they maintain their fiction.’
The APA cite the case of Army Colonel Dr Larry James, who was sent to Abu Ghraib to implement procedures to prevent future abuse, as an illustration of ‘the value of our strategy of engagement to safeguard the welfare of detainees.’ Asked in The Guardian in February about the existence of the mysterious Camp 7 interrogation site, Dr James replied that he does not want to know where Camp 7 is. ‘I learned a long, long time ago, if I’m going to be successful in the intel community, I’m meticulously - in a very, very dedicated way - going to stay in my lane,’ he said. ‘So if I don't have a specific need to know about something, I don’t want to know about it. I don't ask about it.’ Soldz argues ‘that is hardly the statement of an anti-torture hero. One who looks away and "stays in his lane" is not someone going out on a limb to prevent abuse.’
Responding to an open letter from Soldz and others to the APA President Dr Sharon Brehm, which discusses James’s involvement at Guantanamo, Dr James said: ‘Letters that name and that associate individuals with torture through innuendo have no place in an informed and responsible discussion. They are deeply painful. They are also extremely discouraging to psychologists in the military seeking to do the right thing, many of whom are early in their careers and often in dangerous settings far from family and from loved ones.’
James continued that ‘Having custody and control over an individual is an awesome responsibility. When I was sent to Abu Ghraib, following the well-publicized abuses, I relied upon psychology and well-known psychologists to help me fulfill my mission - to develop training and implement systems designed to prevent further acts of abuse.’
According to Soldz, ‘there is a diversity of opinion among APA critics over whether psychologists should have any involvement at all with interrogations. Some of us believe that psychology, like medicine and psychiatry, should support a "bright line" stating that direct participation in interrogations is incompatible with being a health provider profession dedicated to "do no harm", as our ethics code states. Others feel that participation in interrogations might be acceptable in certain circumstances. But we all agree that psychologists should not be serving interrogations in sites where fundamental human rights are being violated. That is our bottom line.’ JS
BOX: Latest developments from the American Psychological Association
In February, the APA wrote to President George W. Bush to ask him to ‘definitively outlaw waterboarding and several other so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques.’ Later that month, the APA’s Council of Representatives approved an amendment to its 2007 resolution, stating that psychologists are ‘absolutely prohibited’ from any involvement with practices that are defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under U.N. and Geneva conventions, among other leading human rights documents. Stephen Behnke, Director of Ethics for the APA, said: ‘This more specific language, which has been praised by human rights groups, should allay concerns that the 2007 resolution was anything less than ironclad.’
BOX: A utopian vision?
‘If one truly wants to promote ethical interrogations, transparency is the solution. The Abu Ghraib abuses became public only when photographs appeared. If one truly aimed to reduce abuse, it would only require cameras in every detention center and videotaping of every interrogation, with independent access to the tapes. Instead, the Defense Department reaction after Abu Ghraib was to order all cameras removed from detention centers.
Further, we need independent human rights monitors in the detention centers, with full access. The International Committee of the Red Cross, while conducting admirable work, cannot play this role, as their reports are secret. The independent monitors need the right to report publicly on abuses they witness. Of course this is ‘utopian’. But this is no more utopian than the fantasy that psychologists have any unique qualities that will lead them, any more than anyone else, to risk their careers and oppose abuse. Psychologists, with all we've learned about the powerful effects of settings upon individual behavior, should be the first to recognize this truth.’
Stephen Soldz, writing in a recent special issue of the Swedish Journal of Psychology
|
The Psychologist
