DOCSLIB.ORG

The Ethics of Interrogation and the American Psychological Association: a Critique of Policy and Process Brad Olson*1, Stephen Soldz2 and Martha Davis3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Ethics of Interrogation and the American Psychological Association: a Critique of Policy and Process Brad Olson*1, Stephen Soldz2 and Martha Davis3 National Louis University Digital Commons@NLU Faculty Publications Winter 1-29-2008 The thicE s of Interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A Critique of Policy and Process Brad Olson Ph.D. National-Louis University Stephen Soldz Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis Martha Davis John Jay College of Criminal Justice Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Olson, Brad Ph.D.; Soldz, Stephen; and Davis, Martha, "The thicE s of Interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A Critique of Policy and Process" (2008). Faculty Publications. 65. https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/faculty_publications/65 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@NLU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@NLU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine BioMed Central Research Open Access The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process Brad Olson*1, Stephen Soldz2 and Martha Davis3 Address: 1Human Development and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2120 Campus Drive, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA, 2Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis, 1581 Beacon St., Brookline, Massachusetts 02446, USA and 3John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 899 Tenth Avenue, New York, New York 10019, USA Email: Brad Olson* - [email protected]; Stephen Soldz - [email protected]; Martha Davis - [email protected] * Corresponding author Published: 29 January 2008 Received: 9 October 2007 Accepted: 29 January 2008 Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2008, 3:3 doi:10.1186/1747-5341-3-3 This article is available from: http://www.peh-med.com/content/3/1/3 © 2008 Olson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA's long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights. Introduction In the wake of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent The American Psychological Association (APA) has a long "war-on-terror", the APA decided to address the ethical history of opposing the misuse of psychological knowl- implications of psychologist "contributions" to U.S. edge in practice, assessment, research and any other activ- national security. Calling the situation an "emergency", ity utilizing the tools of the field [1,2]. The APA Ethical APA President Ronald Levant authorized the APA Presi- Principles of Psychologists – Code of Conduct has long been dential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National the guide to both acceptable and prohibited behavior Security (PENS) [6]. The task force report and process gen- [3,4], and has long ensured the proper and safe use of psy- erated a number of controversies. One set revolved chological methods. It protects U.S. psychologists, but around the appointment of task force members who were most important of all, those who are most exposed and primarily psychologists serving active military or working most vulnerable to the misuse of psychology and its tools in some then current capacity with the U.S. Department of [5]. Defense (DoD) [7]. Criticism of the task force composi- tion grew when the identification of members revealed !"#$%&%'(%&) !"#$%&'()*%+&',-&.,+&/0-#-0,'&"(+",1%12 3405,1,"467&8-40/17&#'9&:()#'0-0%1&0'&;%90/0'%%*++,-%!./ 0112.3344452$067$859'739':1$:13/3&3/ deep connections with intelligence gathering, detainee PENS Report Statement #7, concluding that "psycholo- interrogations, and related operations within the DoD [8]. gists may serve in various national security-related roles, such as a consultant to an interrogation..." [[6], p. 6]. It is The report, hereafter referred to as the PENS Report, was true the Council of Representatives never voted to completed in 2005 [6]. Shortly thereafter, the APA Board approve the PENS report in its entirety, yet while Council of Directors and the APA Ethics Committee accepted the has expressed reservations and at one point demanded a report as policy. The APA leaders had not only underlined certain set of actions, they have never fully opposed the the importance of psychologists contributing to "national policy. Controversies regarding the PENS Report and security", but that the profession had a responsibility to interrogation policy among Council members and the serve U.S. society [9]. APA rules and regulations on such APA membership have nevertheless continued unabated. task forces require "emergency" reports to be ratified by the Council of Representatives at the next Council meet- The recommendations of the PENS Report, its basic ing. This vote did not then occur and has never occurred. premises, operational definitions, and reinterpretations of However, APA leadership have on several occasions the ethics code have long warranted a detailed evaluation. claimed that Council approved the report, and on almost This is the goal of our critique. We hope to develop ethical as many occasions, publicly retracted the statements. Most considerations regarding psychologists and detainee consequential, though, is that the APA Ethics Committee interrogations, and to help work toward improved poli- did officially approve the report, calling it, without a sin- cies on the role of psychologists within these settings. We gle alteration, consistent with the APA Code of Ethics. Yet believe that this critique supports an absolute prohibition it was the content of the report, and its seeming inconsist- of psychologists' direct involvement in these interroga- ency with psychological ethics, that provoked the strong- tions, and that this is the safest, wisest and most ethical est feelings throughout the APA membership, and less course of action for the American Psychological Associa- than favorable reactions from the media, among them The tion and its members. Such a ban, we believe, may also be New York Times [10]. the safest and surest course for national security [13]. Upon adoption, the PENS report became policy binding All U.S. psychologists accountable to all sections upon members of the APA involved in detainee interroga- of the code tions and other U.S. national security activities. As psy- The PENS Report, in one of its stronger statements, explic- chologists and members of the APA, the authors will itly affirmed that all U.S. psychologists, regardless of their elucidate a number of controversial issues regarding the different applied, research-based, or practitioner roles, PENS process and weaknesses in the reasoning of the were to be held fully accountable to all sections of the APA PENS report. ethics code [[6], p. 1]. This is a key conclusion, insisting, for instance, that a "clinically-trained" psychologists act- The incompatible nature of the PENS report and ing in a "consultant role" is responsible to both clinical the ethics code and consulting sections of the code, and even those sec- It would be inaccurate to say there was nothing positive in tions applying to assessment and research. It equally reaf- the PENS report. It had, after all, reaffirmed the 1982 APA firms the task force's commitment to existing ethical Resolution against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or principles and standards within the code, supported also, Degrading Treatment. Also, in 2006 and again in 2007, the of course, by the approval of the APA Ethics Committeea. Council of Representatives supported further resolutions To a large extent, we also feel comfortable with the current against torture with ever tighter and more explicit prohi- Ethics Code (with the important exception of new 2002 bitions [11,12]. However, each resolution had its own clauses, such as 1.02, that allow compliance with local problems and serious omissions and each resolution has law, regulations, or governing authorities when institu- preserved the direct role of psychologists in military and tional demands conflict with the psychologist's
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Experiments in Torture: Evidence of Human Subject Research and Experimentation in the “Enhanced” Interrogation Program
    EXPERIMENTS IN TORTURE: Evidence of Human Subject Research and Experimentation in the “Enhanced” Interrogation Program A White Paper by Physicians for Human Rights June 2010 Authors & This report was reviewed and edited by Stephen Greene, Communications Consultant to PHR. It was prepared for Acknowledgements publication by Gurukarm Khalsa, PHR Web Editor/ Producer. Jared Voss, PHR Web Editor/Producer, produced the video associated with the report. The lead author for this report is Nathaniel Raymond, Director of the Campaign Against Torture/Campaign for PHR is deeply indebted to critical research performed Accountability at Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The by Daniel Scarvalone, Louise Place, and Jesse Hamlin. lead medical author is Scott Allen, MD, Co-Director of the This report could not have been written without their Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at Brown contributions. University and Medical Advisor to PHR. They were joined in writing the report by Vincent Iacopino, MD, PhD, PHR Senior Medical Advisor; Allen Keller, MD, Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture; Stephen Soldz, PhD, President-elect of Psychologists for Social Responsibility and Director of the Center for Research, Evaluation and Physicians for Program Development at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; Steven Reisner, PhD, PHR Advisor on Human Rights Ethics and Psychology; and John Bradshaw, JD, PHR Chief Policy Officer and Director of PHR’s Washington DC Office. PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health profes- sionals, with their specialized skills, ethical commitments, This report has benefited from review by Deborah and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate Ascheim, MD, Associate Professor of Health Policy and the health consequences of human rights violations and Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and PHR board work to stop them.
    [Show full text]
  • “Suddenly, I Couldn't Anymore:”
    WINTER 2008 ISSUE #14 Newsletter of Section 9, Psychoanalysts for Social Responsibility, Division of Psychoanalysis, American Psychological Association “Suddenly, I Couldn’t Anymore:” On Becoming a Psychoanalyst-Activist Edited Transcript of Presentation to the Department of Psychology, The New School, New York By Steven Reisner, Ph.D. to think; not to think is not to risk risking.” I belief and in speech, in what it was possible to International Trauma Studies Program, would like to offer one more quotation, from think. When the Bush administration came in, Columbia University, New York Beckett: ‘Suddenly, no, at last, at long last, I it became very clear to those of us who think couldn’t any more; I couldn’t go on. Someone politically, and progressively, that this admin- said, you can’t stay here; I couldn’t stay there, istration was determined to change everything I’d like to try to accomplish two and I couldn’t go on.” completely, quickly and across the board. things today. First, for those of you who aren’t For me, that ‘Suddenly, no, at last, at They were changing civil liberties, they were so familiar with what’s been going on with the long last, I couldn’t anymore, I couldn’t go changing the judgeships, they were changing American Psychological Association, I want to on,” frames how I wanted to approach this. the law, they were changing the power of the recount this reprehensible story of psychologists’ Suddenly and at long last, I couldn’t go on not Presidency; there was a vast array of attempts to involvement in torture.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychologists Defying Torture the Challenge and the Path Ahead
    Chapter 5 Psychologists defying torture The challenge and the path ahead Stephen Soldz It is by now generally accepted that the George W. Bush administration engaged in a systematic policy of detainee abuse that sometimes amounted to torture and often consisted of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, both of which are banned by the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1984, p. 2), signed by the United States. If there had been any doubt that U.S. detainee abuses were the result of a systematic policy, that doubt has surely been erased by publication of detailed reports from the Defense and Justice Departments Inspectors General (Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, 2006; Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, 2008), and the Senate Armed Services Committee (2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Levin, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c). Journalist Jane Mayer (2008) and others have placed the ultimate authorization of the most brutal of these abuses directly in the White House (Greenburg, Rosenberg, & Vogue, 2008a, 2008b). As information about this policy and its implementation has gradually emerged, it became clear that military and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) psychologists played central roles in the development and implemen- tation of these abusive tactics. Simultaneously, the American Psychological Association (APA), while publicly opposing torture, took extraordinary measures to encourage and protect psychologist involvement in U.S. national security interrogations at the sites where abuses were rampant. As a result, a movement emerged among APA members and other psy- chologists to oppose to this prointerrogations policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Is the “Post” in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder? First Impressions
    Chapter 6 From resistance to resistance A narrative of psychoanalytic activism Steven Reisner Suddenly, no, at last, at long last, I couldn’t anymore, I couldn’t go on. Someone said, you can’t stay here. I couldn’t stay there and I couldn’t go on. Samuel Beckett AU: Check Texts for Nothing I, 1967, p. 75 book title against refs. I plan to tell two intertwined stories. One is personal: the story of how I sud- denly—no, at last, at long last—couldn’t go on. I couldn’t go on as simply an observer of the history of government abuses of detainees in the war on terror, but found myself unwittingly applying psychoanalytic skills to inu- ence that history, and how I ultimately found that I had to act. It is not my story alone, but the story of how a small group of psychologists and psycho- analysts uncovered and changed the American Psychological Association’s complicity our country’s military and intelligence torture programs, and perhaps, in the process interfered with its continued execution. AU: Sometimes the separating The second story, simultaneous with the rst, is the story of the Bush asterisk were administration’s program of torture and abuse of detainees, and of the deleted. They interrupted the essential role psychologists played in that program. flow of text and are better re- Telling the two stories together and discovering what I have to tell con- served for times tinues to surprise me. I still nd it unfathomable that pulling on the threads when the subject matter changes of the role of psychologists unraveled the Bush administration’s covert tor- or to break long passages.
    [Show full text]
  • Complicity: Psychology and War on Terror Abuses
    COALITION FOR AN ETHICAL PSYCHOLOGY human rights * ethics * social justice www.ethicalpsychology.org Complicity: Psychology and War on Terror Abuses Torture has been in the national news again this spring as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted last month to declassify key sections of its 6,300-page report reviewing the CIA’s brutal post- 9/11 detention and interrogation program. While findings already leaked from the Senate report should be disturbing to all Americans, our nation’s psychologists should be especially troubled by this one: “Two contract psychologists devised the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques and were central figures in the program’s operation.” These cruel, inhuman, degrading and often torturous techniques ranged from painful stress positions to prolonged sleep deprivation to cramped confinement in a small box to waterboarding – all designed to debilitate a detainee and render him physically and psychologically helpless. Other carefully documented accounts of psychologist involvement in the abuse and torture of prisoners at places like Guantanamo, Bagram, and CIA black sites have emerged repeatedly for nearly a decade. But the comprehensive, multi-year Senate investigation is likely to provide the most detailed account to date of how psychologists abandoned their fundamental do-no-harm ethics and participated in the horrific excesses of the “war on terror.” In the past, the American Psychological Association (APA) – the world’s largest organization of psychologists – has responded to similar revelations with silence, denials, unactionable platitudes, and assertions that the APA has always been steadfast in its opposition to torture. Such responses, however, conceal a distressing and unwelcome truth: that U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Session Four
    3PM Session Four Interviewee: Stephen Soldz Location: New York, NY Interviewer: Mary Marshall Clark Date: April 30, 2013 Q: Okay, it is April 30, 2013. This is Mary Marshall Clark. I'm very grateful to be with Stephen Soldz. I'd like to start this mini interview with the same question I always ask. Tell me something about your growing up life-where you were born and your early influences. Soldz: I was born in St. Louis. I say, Missouri is the "Show Me State," so I'm known for telling people to show me the evidence. Actually, my family left when I was four. My brother and I went back for a few years in summers, but basically had almost nothing to do with St. Louis and • Missouri since then . I lived for four years in the Boston area, then eight years in Virginia, and then returned to Boston, where I've been ever since. I was in science and mathematics initially. When we were in Boston, there was a physicist next door who was very influential at the time. Then we were in Virginia; the influences were from reading. I discovered Henry Thoreau somewhere around when I was eleven or twelve-Civil Disobedience and others of the nonviolent protesters, Dave Dellinger, the Mississippi Summer folks. They were my heroes at that point. Then I went off to MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] when I was fifteen, and I had- there were two things I wanted to accomplish. One was to hear Noam Chomsky speak and the • Soldz -- 4 -- 158 other was to find a radical group to join.
    [Show full text]
  • Torture Fellow at Physicians for Human Rights 7 Introduction (PHR) and Scott Allen, MD, FACP, Medical Advisor at PHR
    Contents Acknowledgments 3 Executive Summary This report was written by Sarah Dougherty, JD, MPH, 6 Methodology senior anti-torture fellow at Physicians for Human Rights 7 Introduction (PHR) and Scott Allen, MD, FACP, medical advisor at PHR. 22 CIA Torture Experiments The report benefitted from review by PHR staff, including 30 Research on the Health Carolyn Greco, JD, senior U.S. policy associate; Vincent Effects of Torture Iacopino, MD, PhD, senior medical advisor; Donna 44 Applications of CIA McKay, executive director; Marianne Møllmann, LLM, Research on Detainees MSc, director of research and investigations; Susannah 51 Conclusion Sirkin, director of international policy and partnerships; 55 Recommendations and Homer Venters, MD, director of programs. PHR 56 Appendix A: Legal and advisors and former employees contributed invaluable Ethical Standards for expertise and guidance on this report, including Widney Human Subjects Brown, JD; Nathaniel Raymond; and Stephen Soldz, PhD. Protection PHR intern Robert Erikson provided research assistance. 60 Appendix B: Select New Evidence since PHR’s The report also benefitted from external review by 2010 Analysis Deborah D. Ascheim, MD, member of PHR’s board of 61 Appendix C: Select directors. Timeline of Relevant Events The report was reviewed, edited, and prepared for 65 Endnotes publication by Claudia Rader, MS, content and marketing manager. Support for this report was provided by the Open Society Foundations. Cover: A detainee at Guantánamo Bay detention center. Some detainees tortured at secret CIA “black sites” around the world were later transferred to Guantánamo. Photo: John Moore/Getty Nuremberg Betrayed Physicians for Human Rights phr.org 2 Executive Summary After the 9/11 terror attacks, as part of its counterterrorism efforts, the Bush administration authorized the systematic torture and ill-treatment of detainees in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Torture and Its Consequences in American History Jeffrey Sawyer Western Oregon University
    Western Oregon University Digital Commons@WOU Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) Department of History 2008 Torture and its Consequences in American History Jeffrey Sawyer Western Oregon University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Sawyer, Jeffrey, "Torture and its Consequences in American History" (2008). Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History). 189. https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his/189 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Thesis Paper Jeffrey Sawyer Torture and its Consequences in American History The popularity of the TV show “24,” since it first aired in November of 2001 and lack of public indignation after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal clearly demonstrate a change in the American psyche regarding torture. It used to be incompatible with America’s values to engage in such immoral acts. If Americans were really upset and infuriated by the pictures seen after Abu Ghraib, they would have done more than offer a simple protest and call for those responsible to come to justice, especially after former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger claimed that, "We believe that there is institutional and personal responsibility right up the chain of command as far as Washington is concerned."1 If Americans still were a people who loved freedom and human rights, “24” would not be nearly as popular as it is.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Aid for the Research Materials
    Research Materials of The Psychology and Military/Intelligence Casebook on Ethics of Interrogation, Training, Treatment, and Research January 2010 Psychologists for Social Responsibility Intelligence Ethics Collection Hoover Institution Archives UNRESTRICTED CONTENTS OF COLLECTION Note: Many additional research materials are restricted, most until January 1, 2020. Audio recordings are archived with the restricted materials. Preliminary Casebook Meeting, Herndon, VA, June 27 – June 30, 2008 Partial Participant List for Initial Preliminary Casebook Meeting, Herndon, VA. Unrestricted Preliminary Casebook Meeting Sessions, transcripts “Nonlethal Neuroweapons Experimentation on Civilians,” meeting with Cheryl Welsh, June 28, 2008 [omitted participant in restricted transcript] “Review of ‘Nonlethal Neuroweapons Experimentation on Civilians’ Session with Cheryl Welsh,” excerpt from Plenary Review Session One, June 28, 2009 “Commanders from the First Gulf War,” meeting with a retired intelligence officer responsible for tactical interrogations and with a retired intelligence officer who conducted interviews of refugees seeking asylum, June 29, 2008 “A Military Intelligence Analyst at Abu Ghraib — Whistle Blower Experience and Clinical Aftermath,” meeting with Sam Provance, June 29, 2008 “Remote Psychological Assessment — Area Intelligence Officer in the Middle East,” meeting with Mr. C (anonymous), June 29, 2008 “An Anthropologist’s Applications of Systems Theory to Development of the Casebook,” meeting with Roberta Culbertson, PhD, June 30, 2009 Unrestricted Case Narratives Psychological Assistance in Selection and Training of Intelligence Operatives — World War II • Application of Group Dynamics to Selection and Survival of U.S. Spies in Occupied Europe — Kurt Lewin and Ron Lippett, • Competence and Self-Control under Psychological Stress, Personnel Selection Tests for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) — Ralph G.
    [Show full text]
  • Peace News Psychologists for Peace, Interest Group of the Australian Psychological Society
    Winter 2018 Peace News Psychologists for Peace, interest group of the Australian Psychological Society In this edition: From the Editor Greetings PfP members! Welcome to our Winter edition, a good time to hibernate (especially for • Psychologists for Peace Prizes and Awards 2018 those of us who live in the south), to enter the cave and go inward and to find some inner peace. • Conferences and calls for In the last National Committee meeting held in June, our Committee papers decided to make contact with you all in order to get an indication of what • Prizes and research grants it is that you would like from your membership. Some of you have already spoken to a state representative already. And we appreciate the • Other links and resources feedback that we have received thus far. For those members who have been a bit more difficult to reach, please feel free to contact Winnifred or myself directly, should you wish to share your views about your Psychologists for Peace: membership; our newsletter; the PfP Facebook page; projects you would like us to be involved in; professional development opportunities you Working to promote peace in the world and prevent conflict would like to be part of; your interest in becoming involved in state or through psychological national committee matters; and/or anything else pertaining to matters research, education and of peace. advocacy. Wishing you all the best during this time, Contact Us: [email protected] or Best wishes, Sara Cohen [email protected] [email protected] Online: Psychologists for Peace Prizes and Awards 2018 groups.psychology.org.au/pfp/ The Psychologists for Peace Interest Group has two prizes and awards Newsletter contributions: open this year, and we encourage our members to promote them Please email any PfP news or through their networks: any other related articles, resources and/or links to 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Torture and Psychology
    English translation by Vebjörn Ekroll of: Mausfeld, R. (2009). Psychologie, ,weiße Folter‘ und die Verantwortlichkeit von Wissenschaftlern, Psychologische Rundschau, 60, 229–240. Psychology, 'white torture' and the responsibility of scientists Rainer Mausfeld In 2008 and 2009 further documents on the kind of 'innovative interrogation techniques' routinely employed in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram have become public. These interrogation tech- niques are - also in the opinion of the current US government - to be classified as torture. As these techniques are tailored for the purpose of leaving no traces immediately recognisable to the general public, they are also known as 'white torture', 'clean torture' or 'no-touch torture'. The most import- ant among these documents are the four secret memoranda of the Department of Justice 1 released in April 2009 by President Obama, the November 2008 report of the Senate 2, as well as the confiden- tial Guantánamo report of the Red Cross 3, which had been kept classified since 2007 and became known only later. These documents reveal further details about how deeply psychologists were involved in the development and use of 'white torture' techniques. Physicians for Human Rights concluded on the basis of the available evidence that “the Senate Armed Services Committee report confirms that psychologists were central to the Bush Administration's use of torture”. 4 Furthermore, these documents show the pivotal role psychological experts played in the juridical efforts of the Bush Administration towards labelling these techniques as 'harmless', and hence, as not being in conflict with the legal prohibition of torture. Already in the years before, more and more details became known about the contribution of psychologists to the development of 'novel interrogation techniques' by means of which the will of an interrogatee can be broken in an 'efficient manner' – as well as about their direct participation in such interrogations.
    [Show full text]
  • Statements from State Psychological Associations Regarding the Hoffman Report
    Statements from State Psychological Associations Regarding the Hoffman Report OPA Board of Directors Statement Regarding APA Independent Review July 21, 2015 The Oregon Psychological Association's (OPA) Board of Directors, like many of our members, spent much of the last week reviewing the independent report delivered to the American Psychological Association (APA) Board of Directors by David Hoffman. The report revealed APA's collusion with the Department of Defense and other government officials to support their policies on torture. We are shocked and profoundly disappointed at the actions of a small group of APA leaders who misled our organization and our membership. We recognize that our members, like us, are experiencing a deep sense of betrayal by our parent organization. The sense of betrayal cuts across many levels as we learned from the Hoffman report that many of our most trusted leaders, including individuals who authored our ethical code, were attempting to "curry favor" with government officials by intentionally making our ethical code "loose and porous." That their actions abetted human suffering is especially painful to a profession of healers with a long and proud history of scientific research on the alleviation of human suffering. And it is unconscionable that the very leaders we trusted to carry our message of healing to the public instead chose to deceive both us and the public in the interest of avoiding accountability for those who engaged in abusive interrogation techniques. Their actions violated their responsibility to us, to our profession and to the public. While we remain troubled and shaken by the revelations in the Hoffman report, we also want to voice our appreciation to those who courageously expressed their concerns about APA's policies on torture over more than a decade of time and in the face of strong opposition including a concerted campaign to silence and discredit them.
    [Show full text]