[Ppnews] Psychologists Reject the Dark Side: Participation in Bush Detention Centers

[Political Prisoner News]

Psychologists Reject the Dark Side:


American Psychological Association Members Reject 
Participation in Bush Detention Centers

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18906

September 24, 2008 By Stephen Soldz
and Brad Olson

The movement against U.S. torture experienced a 
significant victory last week. The members of the 
American Psychological Association [APA] rejected 
the policies of their leadership, policies that 
abetted the Bush administration's program of 
torture and detainee abuse. By a vote of 59%, the 
members passed a referendum stating that APA 
members may not work in U.S. detention centers 
that are outside of or in violation of 
international law or the U.S. Constitution 
"unless they are working directly for the persons 
being detained or for an independent third party 
working to protect human rights." Passage of this 
referendum is a significant milestone in a years 
long effort by activist psychologists to change 
policies that encouraged participation in 
detainee interrogations because psychologists, 
the APA leadership claimed, helped keep those 
interrogations "safe, legal, and ethical."

Since 2004, news reports and 
<http://counterpunch.org/soldz06072007.html>government 
documents have provided evidence of the central 
role of psychologists in designing, implementing, 
and disseminating the administrations' program of 
abusive interrogations, whether conducted by the 
<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?printable=true&currentPage=all>CIA 
in its secret 
"<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true>black 
sites" or by the Defense Department at 
<http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4?printable=truehttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4?printable=true>Guantánamo, 
and in 
<http://counterpunch.org/soldz05272008.html>Iraq 
and Afghanistan. As Vanity Fair reporter 
Katherine Eban described the CIA side of this equation:

"I... discovered that psychologists weren't 
merely complicit in America's aggressive new 
interrogation regime. Psychologists, working in 
secrecy, had actually designed the tactics and 
trained interrogators in them while on contract to the C.I.A."

On the Defense Department side, the Senate Armed 
Services Committee reported in June 2008 on the 
role of military psychologists in helping design 
the harsh interrogation techniques used at 
Guantánamo. As Senator Levin described in his opening remarks:

"a... senior CIA lawyer, Jonathan Fredman, who 
was chief counsel to the CIA's CounterTerrorism 
Center, went to GTMO, attended a meeting of GTMO 
staff and discussed a memo proposing the use of 
aggressive interrogation techniques. That memo 
had been drafted by a psychologist and 
psychiatrist from GTMO who, a couple of weeks 
earlier, had attended the training given at Fort 
Bragg by instructors from the JPRA SERE school.
While the memo remains classified, minutes from 
the meeting where it was discussed are not. Those 
minutes (TAB 7) clearly show that the focus of 
the discussion was aggressive techniques for use against detainees."

The 
<http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Documents.SASC.061708.pdf>minutes 
from that meeting show this psychologist and 
psychiatrist recommending creating an atmosphere 
of "controlled chaos," which would "foster 
dependence and compliance," through the creation 
of "psychological stress" by means of using such 
techniques as " sleep deprivation, withholding 
food, isolation, loss of time." This strategy was 
implemented and became standard operating procedure.

For example, in September 2003, young (16 or 17 
year old) Mohammed Jawad became upset during 
interrogation, talking to pictures on the wall 
and crying for his mother. A military 
psychologist, a behavioral science consultant, 
was brought in for guidance. She 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/15/press-release-military-psychologist-refuses-to-testify-about-abusive-treatment-of-detainee-at-guantanamo/>recommended 
Jawad be placed in a month of "linguistic 
isolation" while the interrogator ratcheted up 
the pressure to break him down. This treatment 
apparently contributed to a 
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/202415/685/395/568118>suicide 
attempt by Jawad.

Evidence has accumulated of psychologists 
designing and contributing to detainee abuses 
sometimes amounting to torture. Despite the 
overwhelming evidence, the APA has steadfastly 
insisted that psychologists should not 
participate in torture; they argued, rather, that 
psychologists were vitally needed to help 
interrogators better obtain information while 
simultaneously, according to the APA, preventing 
detainee abuses. The APA used a multitude of 
techniques to defend their policy. They 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/apa_faq_coalition_comments_v12c.pdf>appointed 
a task force to formulate ethics policy around 
national security interrogations without 
informing the membership or the public that the 
majority of members were from the 
military-intelligence establishment. The APA 
passed 
<http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16711>anti-torture 
resolutions while 
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/26/3414/>rejecting 
attempts to withdraw psychologists from sites 
that violated human rights or even from the 
interrogations at Guantanamo and the CIA's black sites.

The APA also ignored 
<http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0607-06.htm>Open 
Letters from hundreds of their members. At times 
these efforts became ludicrous doublespeak. An 
APA Board member, for instance, sent around an 
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Torture-Trainers-and-t-by-Stephen-Soldz-080624-297.html>email 
claiming that the very Senate Armed Services 
hearing that implicated military psychologists in 
the design of torture techniques actually 
exonerated the psychologists and the discipline. 
The association's ethics director even 
<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19994.htm>claimed 
documents released by the ACLU showed the APA's 
"policy of engagement" was working to protect 
detainees when the document in question 
apparently merely reported that one psychologist 
in Iraq once stopped an interrogation prior 
to  the detainee dying or, perhaps, suffering 
serious physical damage. Through it all, the APA 
<http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/?page_id=20>maintained 
its 
<http://200.19.92.28/psicologia/pdf/101/artigo_13.pdf>close 
ties to the military-intelligence establishment.

While the APA leadership resisted all challenges 
to its position, the members and other 
psychologists  and their allies did not remain 
silent. Dissident members worked tirelessly to 
change the organizations' position. Some worked 
within official association committees. During 
2006-2007, members pushed a Moratorium resolution 
that would have temporarily halted participation 
in interrogations at the detention sites; the 
measure was undercut by APA organizational 
manipulations, and a derivative effort was 
decisively defeated by the associations' Council 
of Representatives in August 2006. A number of 
prominent psychologists - including a former 
<http://kspope.com/apa/index.php>ethics committee 
Chair, a 
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-did-the-American-Psych-by-Bryant-Welch-080727-467.html>former 
Executive Director of one of the associations' 
major divisions, and a former 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/10/07/noted-psychologist-beth-shinn-resigns-from-american-psychological-association/>division 
President - resigned in protest.  New York Times 
bestselling author Mary Pipher 
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_pip_070824_why_i_ve_returned_my.htm>returned 
an award to the APA. Hundreds stopped paying 
membership dues, aided by a policy that allowed 
dues withholders to remain members for two years. 
Colleagues in other countries expressed their 
disapproval  of APA policies. Physicians for 
Human Rights documented 
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2007-08-02.html>U.S. 
psychological torture and 
<http://actnow-phr.org/phr/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=5944351>many 
times called for 
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/letter-2008-08-14.html>changes 
in APA policies permitting participation in the 
settings where that torture occurred.

After years of failing to effect real change 
through the associations' Council of 
Representatives - which 
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-did-the-American-Psych-by-Bryant-Welch-080727-467.html>infrequently 
challenges the APA leadership on issues of vital 
importance to those leaders -  dissident members 
and allies turned in 2008 to new strategies 
designed simultaneously to take advantage of, and 
to bypass, the official structures. Members of 
the 
<http://www.withholdapadues.com/>withholdapadues 
group found a never before used provision in the 
association by-laws allowing for a 
member-initiated policy referendum. Three 
psychologists - Dan Aalbers, Brad Olson, and Ruth 
Fallenbaum - got to work writing a referendum 
rejecting the participation of psychologists at 
detention centers operating outside of [as in the 
Geneva Conventions don't apply] or in violation 
of [as in enhanced interrogations are approved] 
international law or the Constitution. APA rules 
require that one percent of the active members' 
signatures be obtained on a petition in order to 
get it submitted to the members for a vote. It 
took only a matter of weeks to obtain more than the necessary numbers.

The campaign generated amazing grassroots 
activism. People never before heard from were 
found emailing their successes in convincing 
other colleagues to vote. Several brief videos 
were made by members  and distributed on 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GDH4V8A_Qc&eurl=http://www.psysr.org/about/committees/endtorture/voteyes.php>YouTube 
and 
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=752182170409437361>Google 
Video. 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/05/09/community-psychologist-write-apa-leadership-on-interrogations/>Two 
APA 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/22/society-for-the-scientific-study-of-social-issues-spssi-supports-apa-referendum/>divisions 
lined up in support. Conversation about the 
referendum on psychologist-run listservs was 
greater than that on any other topic in memory.

The opposition raised concerns, especially among 
forensic psychologists; they were concerned that 
the language could somehow be misunderstood to 
ban psychologists working in domestic prisons 
where abuses are prevalent. This possibility was 
problematic for many referendum supporters. Many 
of those actively supporting the referendum are 
deeply concerned about the horrific conditions in 
much of the U.S. criminal justice system. Yet, it 
seemed impossible to tackle all issues at once, 
and the referendum was designed to focus only 
upon "national security" detainees, held in 
abusive conditions, with few or no rights. Thus, 
the referendum sponsors issued a 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/08/support-for-psychologists-referendum-against-collusion-in-detainee-abuse/>statement 
that clarified the applicability of the 
referendum. Nevertheless, this statement failed 
to allay the concerns of some that the referendum 
could cost psychologists their jobs.

In an unprecedented development, illustrating the 
high stakes involved in the potential policy 
change, the Defense Department issued a 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/22/defense-department-issues-statement-opposing-apa-referendum-there-are-no-neutrals-there/>press 
release with "talking points" opposing the 
referendum. The first two of these talking points 
unintentionally emphasized the need for the referendum:

"Humane treatment and ensuring detainees are not 
subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment is required in accordance with U.S. law.

Behavioral science consultants do NOT support 
interrogations that aren't in accordance with applicable law."

U.S law, as interpreted by the present 
administration, redefines traditionally 
proscribed detention and interrogation procedures 
as "humane" and "legal." Therefore, referendum 
supporters pointed out, this requirement to 
follow "applicable law" does not protect 
military, or CIA, psychologists from 
participating in abuses that would be inhumane if 
judged by international standards.

The referendum ballots went out by mail on August 
1st and were due back on September 15th. Two days 
later, the results were announced. The referendum 
won with 59% of the vote. Furthermore, the 
turnout, at nearly 15,000 members, was among the highest in any APA election.

The passage of the referendum constitutes a giant 
step toward creating a united front of health 
professions opposed to detainee abuse. While the 
APA referendum policy differs from policy 
statements by other associations in significant 
details­its focus on settings as opposed to the 
interrogations themselves­it follows previous 
policy statements from the 
<http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_10a06.pdf>American 
Medical Association and the 
<http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200601.pdf>American 
Psychiatric Association opposing participation in 
interrogations. This united front will increase 
the pressure on the administration to remove 
health professionals from their roles aiding 
these abusive detention policies. It will also 
escalate the accumulating pressures for a 
radically different detention policy under the 
new U.S. presidential administration and Congress next January.

Referendum passage constitutes a giant step 
forward for those psychologists who have been 
fighting to change the APA's policies on 
involvement in the detention centers. But the 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Goodman-PsychologistsInDenial.pdf>struggle 
of dissident psychologists is far from over. 
First, there is a disagreement with APA 
leadership as to when the policy change goes into 
effect; the leadership claimed initially that the 
bylaws state that the change doesn't go into 
effect till next August, while referendum 
supporters believe this claim is an egregious 
misreading of the bylaws. Discussions continue 
regarding the details of referendum implementation.

Moreover, while the APA's policy is in the 
process of changing, the organizational and 
policy conditions­the culture that allowed the 
APA to advocate for years in support of 
psychologist participation in detainee 
interrogations­have not changed. Activists are 
focused upon several additional steps to bring 
about a rejuvenation of their association and their professions.

There is a strong campaign afoot to elect one of 
the activists as APA President to make sure the 
new policy is firmly implemented and backed by 
the organization, as well as to push other 
efforts making human rights and social justice 
more central within the profession of psychology. 
Steven Reisner, a New York psychologist is 
running an 
<http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/>active 
campaign. In the first nomination phase of the 
campaign, he received the highest number of votes 
among the five winning candidates. Passage of the 
referendum should provide an even stronger boost 
to his campaign. Ballots go out to the APA 
membership this October and are due back November 15.

APA members have been deeply disturbed by another 
prior action of the Association. In 2002, its 
ethics committee placed a clause in the ethics 
code, allowing laws, regulations, and government 
orders to override professional ethics. These 
members are concerned that the clause provides an 
offensive loophole that is a variation on the 
Nuremberg defense - "I was just following orders" - into the ethics code.

The APA Council of Representatives called on the 
ethics committee to address this problem in 2005. 
Despite these instructions, the association has 
resisted clarifying this clause by adding a 
phrase as simple as "except when violating 
fundamental human rights". Other disturbing 2002 
modifications to the APA ethics code weakened 
protections for research participants, such as 
removing a requirement for informed consent from 
participants "where otherwise permitted by law or 
federal or institutional regulations." Such a 
clause could, for example, allow experimentation 
on detainees without their permission, a 
disturbing violation of professional guidelines and international agreements.

Activist psychologists and their allies also are 
pushing for accountability for past abuses by 
psychologists. While some 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/15/press-release-military-psychologist-refuses-to-testify-about-abusive-treatment-of-detainee-at-guantanamo/>psychologists, 
including 
<http://ajobonline.com/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140>APA 
members, have been documented to have 
participated in abuses likely constituting 
torture, the APA ethics committee has 
consistently 
<http://counterpunch.org/bond05192008.html>stalled 
action against or refused to open cases against 
these psychologists. This needs to stop.

Another form of accountability is a ‘setting 
right' of the historical record. Given the known 
facts regarding psychologists and their roles in 
detainee abuse, and given the extensive denial of 
these facta and their significance by APA 
leadership, it is critical to create a detailed 
public record of the contributions of 
psychologists to the dark side over the last 
seven years. It is imperative that a Psychologist 
Truth Commission be created that will examine all 
materials, existing in the public record or 
available through investigation, and construct 
such a permanent record. Also necessary is a 
careful examination of the many other 
organizational, ethical, and policy issues that 
allowed the psychological profession and its 
major professional organization to become 
complicit in detainee abuse over the last seven 
years. Clinical psychologists often encourage 
their clients to face harsh truths. It is 
similarly necessary for our profession to face 
these somewhat cold and difficult realities. Only 
this will prevent us from recreating this sad 
episode in our profession's history when the next 
national or international crisis hits.

The implications of passage of the referendum 
extend beyond the APA and psychology. The 
referendum will put additional pressure on the 
DoD to remove psychologists from their roles 
aiding interrogations and behavior management. It 
will also create additional pressure for the 
development of a mental health system for 
detainees that is completely isolated from chain 
of command pressures. While the DoD is not 
necessarily bound by APA policy, it generally 
follows professional ethics policies; to do 
otherwise could make its efforts to recruit and 
retain psychologists and other professionals 
substantially more difficult. The implications 
for the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program 
are less certain, given the secrecy under which 
that program is conducted. Yet, even there, the 
APA referendum will increase pressure for a new 
administration and Congress to shut down the program."

Finally, passage of the referendum is being 
heralded by the wider public as a sign of an 
impending rejection by U.S. citizens of the "dark 
side" which has taken over so much of our 
government and country in recent years. This 
feeling was expressed by the conservative 
commentator, anti-torture activist, and blogger 
Andrew Sullivan who headlined his posting on the 
referendum's passage with 
"<http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/know-hope.html>Know 
Hope." Congratulatory emails from around the 
world have indicated that many find hope in our 
psychologist colleagues' rejection of the dark 
side.  "Finally, good news from the U.S." one 
email said. These correspondents join us in 
hoping that this rejection of official torture 
and abuse will be followed by a wholesale 
rejection from the American public and government.



<mailto:ssoldz at bgsp.edu>Stephen Soldz is a 
psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health 
researcher, and faculty member at the 
<http://www.bgsp.edu/>Boston Graduate School of 
Psychoanalysis. He maintains the 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/ORR.htm>Psychoanalysts 
for Peace and Justice web site and the 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/>Psyche, 
Science, and Society blog. He is a founder of the 
Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, one of the 
organizations leading the struggle to change 
American Psychological Association policy on 
participation in abusive interrogations.

<mailto:b-olson at northwestern.edu>Brad Olson is an 
applied social and community psychologist at 
Northwestern University in the School of 
Education and Social Policy. He is former 
president of the APA Divisions for Social Justice 
(DSJ), a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical 
Psychology, a steering committee member of 
<http://www.withholdapadues.com/>withholdAPAdues, 
and a co-sponsor of the recently passed APA referendum.




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080924/8c2b733c/attachment.htm>