<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div class="header reader-header reader-show-element" dir="ltr"> <font
size="-2"><a class="domain reader-domain"
href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/19/is-the-american-psychological-association-addicted-to-militarism-and-war/">https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/19/is-the-american-psychological-association-addicted-to-militarism-and-war/</a></font>
<h1 class="reader-title">Is the American Psychological
Association Addicted to Militarism and War?</h1>
<span class="post_author_intro">by</span> <span
class="post_author" itemprop="author"><a
href="https://www.counterpunch.org/author/jecaspud8989/"
rel="nofollow">Roy Eidelson</a> - April 19, 2019</span></div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div class="moz-reader-content line-height4 reader-show-element"
dir="ltr">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<p>When hijacked planes hit their targets on the morning
of September 11, 2001, the American Psychological
Association (APA) sprang into action. Within hours,
through its disaster response network the APA mobilized
expert practitioners and worked with the American Red
Cross to provide psychological support to families of
the victims and to rescue workers. The APA’s public
affairs office moved quickly as well to assist the
public—and especially families, children, and schools—by
developing and disseminating <a
href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov01/aparesponds.aspx">materials</a> that
provided psychological guidance about coping with fear
and trauma.</p>
<p>But with comparable urgency, the APA also ensured that
the Bush Administration would view the association as a
valued partner in the military and intelligence
operations central to the new “war on terror.” Within
days, the APA’s science directorate called upon research
psychologists to identify how psychological science
might contribute to counter-terrorism initiatives.
Shortly thereafter, a newly established APA subcommittee
on psychology’s response to terrorism <a
href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov01/militarypsych.aspx">directed</a> its
attention to “offering psychologists’ expertise to
decision-makers in the military, Central Intelligence
Agency, Department of State and related agencies” and to
“inventorying members’ expertise and asking government
psychologists how agencies could put that expertise to
use.”</p>
<p>These two responses are clearly very different from
each other. The first—providing expert,
research-informed psychological assistance to a grieving
and traumatized nation—captures the stated <a
href="https://www.apa.org/about/index">mission</a> of
the APA quite well: “advancing psychology to benefit
society and improve people’s lives.” The second—offering
zealous support to the military-intelligence
establishment after the White House had <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/cheney091601.html">promised</a> a
“crusade” in which adversaries would face the “full
wrath” of the United States and in which our operatives
would “spend time in the shadows” working “the dark
side” and using “any means at our disposal”—certainly
does <em>not. </em></p>
<p><em> </em>Yet in various forms, this troubling
dichotomy has appeared again and again in the years
since the 9/11 attacks. On the one hand, at times the
APA has taken public stands on key perils and injustices
associated with issues such as <a
href="https://www.apa.org/about/policy/climate-change">climate
change</a><a
href="https://www.apa.org/advocacy/socioeconomic-status/index">,
poverty</a>, <a
href="https://www.apa.org/advocacy/civil-rights/diversity/index">racism</a>, <a
href="https://www.apa.org/about/policy/firearms">gun
violence</a>, <a
href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/protecting">consumerism</a>,
and <a
href="https://www.apa.org/advocacy/immigration/separating-families-letter.pdf">immigration</a>.
But when the focus shifts to conquering the <a
href="https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/beyond-vietnam">third</a> of
Martin Luther King’s “giant triplets of racism, extreme
materialism, and militarism,” the APA turns silent, or
worse. With large segments of the American public so
readily and regularly enticed by the bipartisan
glorification of war and all things military, the
world’s largest association of psychologists could play
an important moderating and cautionary role.
Unfortunately, the APA instead often acts like the
“impaired professional” who is<strong> </strong>unable
(or unwilling) to intervene because they too suffer from
the same addiction. Here are several examples.</p>
<p><strong>Torture</strong></p>
<p>The arena that has received the most attention is the
disturbing <a
href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Unjustifiable_Means.html?id=C3BADwAAQBAJ">involvement</a> of
psychologists—including <a
href="https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/viewFile/479/pdf">members</a> of
the APA—in the government-authorized torture and abuse
of “war on terror” detainees. As revelations of this
wrongdoing and abandonment of professional ethics
emerged and then spread well over a decade ago, for
years the APA’s primary responses were a combination of
stonewalling, denials, and attacks against critics. The
APA’s ethics office director <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/washington/07detain.html">insisted</a> that psychologists
knew not to participate in activities that harmed
detainees, and an APA president <a
href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/pc.aspx">wrote</a> that
those who raised concerns were merely “opportunistic
commentators masquerading as scholars.”</p>
<p>In 2005, facing growing outrage, the APA created a
controversial task force to examine psychological ethics
in national security settings (<a
href="https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/pens.pdf">PENS</a>).
Stacked with representatives from the
military-intelligence establishment, the task force met
for three days and, unsurprisingly, asserted that
psychologists helped to keep detention and interrogation
operations <a
href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200196/">“safe,
legal, ethical, and effective”</a>—despite multiple <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/red-cross-finds-detainee-abuse-in-guantanamo.html">accounts</a> that health
professionals, including psychologists, were among the
perpetrators of detainee mistreatment. The APA board of
directors then quickly approved the PENS report in an
“emergency” vote, bypassing the association’s full
governing body.</p>
<p>Finally, in 2015, following a months-long investigation
based on analysis of over 50,000 documents and 150
interviews, an <a
href="https://www.apa.org/independent-review/revised-report.pdf">independent
report</a> authorized by the APA presented extensive
evidence of secret collaboration–conducted over a period
of years—between APA leaders and Department of Defense
officials. These secret efforts were apparently aimed at
ensuring that the APA’s ethics policies would not
constrain interrogation-related activities, and that
psychologists would remain in operational roles
at Guantánamo Bay and other U.S. overseas detention
centers. The report led to a few much-needed <a
href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/psychologist-interrogations">reforms</a>,
but it also produced a backlash from some military
psychologists who, along with their supporters,
responded with defamation lawsuits, a formal ethics <a
href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/psychology-torture-guantanamo-interrogation">complaint</a> and
more threats of the same, and calls for public
suppression of the report itself. Responding to an <a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/psychologists-are-facing-consequences-for-helping-with-torture-its-not-enough/2017/10/13/2756b734-ad14-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html">article</a> by
this author, the APA’s CEO again reached for old
falsehoods, portraying the profession’s dark-side
participation as limited to the actions of “two rogue
psychologists” involved in the CIA’s torture program.</p>
<p><strong>Terrorism</strong></p>
<p>As the U.S. propaganda-driven and illegal invasion of
Iraq was unfolding in 2003, a former APA president
offered a polarizing <a
href="https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11109">warning</a>:
“The civilized world is at war with Jihad Islamic
terrorism. It takes a bomb in the office of some
academics to make them realize that their most basic
values are now threatened.” During that same period, the
APA’s leadership authorized an expert <a
href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-american-psychologica_b_242020">task
force</a> to produce a report examining the
psychological effects on the American public of
government efforts to prevent terrorism. According to
the task force chair, members <a
href="https://www.apa.org/independent-review/revised-report.pdf">recommended</a> that
“psychologists become involved in the development,
implementation and evaluations of new programs about
terrorism and efforts to prevent it,” and that they do
so by using “knowledge about enemy images, stereotyping
of other groups, and the processes of groupthink to
develop guidelines and recommendations to help national,
state, and local leaders tailor their public
communications about terrorism so that their messages
minimize known deleterious effects upon the populace.”</p>
<p>The task force also expressed concern about the
weaponization of fear by the Bush Administration in its
rhetoric about the “war on terror,” which emphasized
ideas about “us versus them,” the importance of loyalty
to a central authority, and the belief that our cultural
norms are universal truths. One task force member
noted that the government’s response could prove more
dangerous than the terrorists themselves. These
conclusions were met with alarm by the APA’s senior
staff, who privately <a
href="https://www.apa.org/independent-review/revised-report.pdf">worried</a> that
publicizing the report could significantly damage the
APA’s public image, and likely cause friction with the
White House. The final report was quashed. A few years
later, it was elaborated and published as a <a
href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Fwie5FvWXekC">book</a>.
The task force chair was reportedly advised by the APA’s
legal counsel that there should be no suggestion that
the association endorsed the book in any manner.</p>
<p><strong>Comprehensive Soldier Fitness</strong></p>
<p>In 2011, the APA devoted an entire <a
href="https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/special/4016601">special
issue</a> of its flagship journal, the <em>American
Psychologist</em>, to a series of uncritical articles
waxing enthusiastic about the U.S. Army’s new
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) program. Based on a
“positive psychology” framework, CSF was developed under
the guidance of psychologists, and all of the journal’s
13 articles were written by individuals involved in
designing and implementing the resilience program. The
avowed <a
href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-00087-005">goals</a> of
CSF were to “enhance soldiers’ ability to handle
adversity, prevent depression and anxiety, prevent PTSD,
and enhance overall well-being and performance.” These
may be worthy aspirations, but CSF quickly became <em>mandatory</em> for
one million soldiers <em>without</em> pilot testing or
compelling evidence that it could achieve these
objectives. Not surprisingly, subsequent <a
href="http://ethicalpsychology.org/materials/Eidelson-&-Soldz-CSF_Research_Fails_the_Test.pdf">analyses</a>,
including those conducted by authoritative scientific <a
href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18597">institutions</a>,
have shown that CSF falls well short of its stated
goals.</p>
<p>This APA special journal issue offered little
discussion of conceptual challenges or ethical
considerations, nor did it provide any forum for
independent critical or cautionary voices. In sum, the
APA’s stance toward CSF was little more than
cheerleading for an untested military research
project—one with enormous ramifications—about which many
crucial questions should have been asked. For example,
might the program be harmful for some soldiers, perhaps
by undermining previously learned successful coping
strategies? Or, by fortifying perseverance in the face
of adversity, might CSF lead soldiers to engage in
actions—including harm to civilians—that later cause
deep regret and <a
href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683376">moral
injury</a>, thereby increasing the potential for PTSD
and other post-combat psychological difficulties? Or,
might this resilience program lead some to deny, for a
time at least, the adverse effects of their traumatic
experiences, heightening the likelihood of premature
redeployment to battle zones with further risk of
serious disability?</p>
<p>The APA’s promotion of the flawed CSF program is yet
further evidence of the organization’s failure to
adequately confront the often-staggering consequences
that flow from uncritical support of our country’s
military ambitions, all too frequently yoked to the <a
href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Hidden_Structure_of_Violence.html?id=oTMVCgAAQBAJ">interests</a> of
mega-corporations and their largest shareholders. “Blind
patriotism”—a topic psychologists have <a
href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0162-895X.00140">studied</a>—serves
to advance policies, framed as “national security”
endeavors, that inevitably endanger the well-being of
our own soldiers, combatants on the other side, and many
innocent civilians—all while squandering precious
resources.</p>
<p><strong>Drone Warfare</strong></p>
<p>With names like the Predator and the Reaper, weaponized
drones used by the U.S. military and the CIA should <a
href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dangerous-ideas/201408/predators-reapers-and-psychology-s-do-no-harm-ethics">raise</a> significant
concerns for the profession of psychology. A detailed
multi-university <a
href="https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Stanford-NYU-Living-Under-Drones.pdf">report</a>examining
U.S. drone policy found that “Their presence terrorizes
men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and
psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those
living under drones have to face the constant worry that
a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the
knowledge that they are powerless to protect
themselves.” Similarly, the director of the human rights
organization Reprieve has <a
href="https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2013_03_05_drones_in_yemen_psychological_emergency/">described</a>the
use of these drones as “a form of psychological torture
and collective punishment.”</p>
<p>These realities raise compelling questions about the
ethics of psychologists’ involvement in such operations.
In 2013, members of the APA’s peace psychology division
(including the author) wrote to the APA’s ethics office
requesting guidance as to whether, according to the
ethics code, it is permissible for a psychologist to be
involved in the operation of a weaponized drone; to work
as an intelligence consultant in the targeting of drone
strikes; to participate in programs designed to select
drone operators or train them to overcome the natural
psychological aversion to killing other people; or to
assist in promoting public support for the use of these
drones by misrepresenting evidence of the harm caused by
such attacks. Sadly, but perhaps predictably, this
request was never answered by the APA’s ethics office.</p>
<p>It is difficult to obtain detailed information about
the ways in which psychologists may be participating in
drone-related operations, especially when that work is
classified. But we do know that psychologists are
conducting research with drone pilots. One area involves
figuring out which skills and attributes make for a
top-notch pilot. Some of this research <a
href="http://www.airforcemag.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reports/2012/January%202012/Day03/RPA_pilot_psychological_attributes.pdf">examines</a> how
a pilot’s belief system and “moral motivation” may <em>negatively</em> affect
their performance when it comes to the deployment of
weapons. Another research area apparently
involves looking at how to reduce the high levels of
stress, PTSD, depression, and substance abuse among
drone operators. According to one <a
href="https://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination">account</a>,
the development of a Siri-like user interface aims to
anthropomorphize the drone—so that the pilot feels less
responsible for the death and destruction
wrought. Seemingly <em>not</em> under investigation is
whether wars will become more likely and more frequent
as we become enthralled with the prospect of
discomfort-free and risk-free killing from afar.</p>
<p><strong>The Defense Budget</strong></p>
<p>In an address shortly after becoming U.S. president in
1953, General Dwight D. Eisenhower <a
href="https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/all_about_ike/speeches/chance_for_peace.pdf">said</a>,
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and
are not clothed.” Nevertheless, there is near unanimous
bipartisan support in Congress for our ever-growing
defense budget—a budget now <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/22/us/is-americas-military-big-enough.html">exceeding</a> that
of the next seven largest countries combined. The most
direct <a
href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Hidden_Structure_of_Violence.html?id=oTMVCgAAQBAJ">beneficiaries</a> of
this outsized spending are, regrettably, often giant
defense contractors and weapons builders. The United
States is also the <a
href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44716.pdf">largest</a>international
arms seller—with ongoing efforts to promote even bigger
markets that include countries ruled by ruthless
autocrats. But none of this seems to garner meaningful
comment from the APA, even though psychology offers
valuable insights into the potentially destructive
consequences of individual and collective choices driven
by fear, greed, conformity, or blind patriotism.</p>
<p>When the federal budget is under discussion in
Washington, DC, at times the APA does indeed <a
href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/reject-presidents-budget">warn</a> against
cuts to key domestic programs, including those that
involve practice opportunities for psychologists. But
the association rarely if ever speaks out against the
enormous financial drain that is today’s
military-intelligence establishment. In fact, when
the APA gives testimony before defense appropriations
committees, it routinely calls for <em>more</em> funding
for psychological research with military applications.
Moreover, the APA members selected to argue this case
are usually high-level staffers at the Human Resources
Research Organization (HumRRO), a defense contractor
first <a
href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryant-welch/torture-psychology-and-da_b_215612.html">established</a> decades
ago to develop “psychological warfare” techniques.
HumRRO’s <a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dutch_Franz/publication/313473797_Subversion_of_the_American_Psychological_Association_by_a_Defense_Contractor_and_Government_Manipulation_of_Vulnerable_On-Line_Communities/links/589b7c3592851c942ddae288/Subver">connections</a> with
the APA are long, deep, and arguably problematic. The
company has received tens of millions of defense
dollars, and its research projects have included <a
href="http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/237/237029310/237029310_201109_990.pdf">work</a> on
developing “overwhelmingly lethal” combat systems.</p>
<p><strong>Professional Ethics</strong></p>
<p>Leaders of the APA’s military psychology <a
href="https://www.militarypsych.org/">division</a> have
been among the most outspoken proponents of modifying
our understanding of the profession’s ethics. Some of
them have <a
href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/attacks-on-hoffman-report-from-military-psychologists-obfuscate-detainee-abuse/">participated</a> in
the harsh detention and interrogation operations at
Guantánamo. Others have <a
href="https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4312016">argued</a> that
the U.S. government is the psychologist’s primary client
in military contexts, and that society’s interests—as
determined by the government—should override other
professional ethical considerations for psychologists.
And another military psychologist has <a
href="https://books.google.com/books?id=fSciAgAAQBAJ">recommended</a> that
psychotherapy techniques be used to train soldiers in
“adaptive killing”—to help them overcome the natural
aversion to taking another life, and the tendency to
feel guilty after doing so. These same interests were
also behind recent <a
href="https://medium.com/@jeff_kaye/un-states-us-interrogations-use-torture-guantanamo-is-a-torture-facility-so-why-do-military-14e9dfebfd04">efforts</a> to
change an APA policy that currently restricts
psychologists from working at Guantánamo and other U.S.
detention facilities that violate international law.
Although that resolution was soundly defeated by the
association’s governing body, the APA’s president
nevertheless <a
href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/paradigm-shift/201810/apa-cozies-the-dod-again">sent</a> a
follow-up letter assuring the Department of Defense that
the prohibition was merely “aspirational” and not
enforceable.</p>
<p>Many of these issues reflect a worrisome and growing
trend toward what this author and colleagues have <a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270940853_Psychology_under_fire_Adversarial_operational_psychology_and_psychological_ethics">called</a> “adversarial
operational psychology.” This area of practice diverges
from the profession’s traditional do-no-harm ethical
principles in three ways: psychologists engage in
military-intelligence activities where individuals or
groups are targeted for harm; these targets have not
provided their voluntary informed consent; and these
psychologists are shielded from professional ethical
oversight by a maze of classified projects and security
clearances. To be clear, most psychologists whose work
supports the U.S. military and other defense-related
agencies do not serve in these roles. But ongoing
efforts to build and promote this specialization reflect
the further weaponization of psychology and can
jeopardize the public’s trust in the profession. At the
same time, they also pose a threat to a psychological
science that depends upon transparency, data sharing,
and peer review.</p>
<p><strong>Breaking Free from the Addiction</strong></p>
<p>There are undoubtedly multiple reasons why the APA
seems to lose its scientific rudder, moral compass, and
independent voice in the military-intelligence arena,
where violence, domination, and oppression are too often
the preferred tools of U.S. foreign policy. Perhaps it
is in part because the Department of Defense is a valued
employer of psychologists, a significant funder of
psychological research, and a key source of internships
for graduate students in clinical psychology. As well,
in influential circles strong connections with the
Pentagon can bring an organization considerable stature
and a proverbial “seat at the table” for policy
deliberations with national and international
ramifications. And we should not overlook the reality
that, when couched as “patriotism,” calls to action—and
obedience—are never easy to resist for individuals or
groups. After all, that is why they have been standard
fare for demagogues across time and place.</p>
<p>But what does the mission of “advancing psychology to
benefit society and improve people’s lives” truly mean
if the APA refuses to counter fearmongering propaganda,
the manipulative nurturing of enemy images, and the
misuse of military might? The consequences of our
failure to rein in these forces are stark: nearly 800
overseas military bases; massive weapons expenditures
that hinder urgent domestic spending needs; assertions
of exceptionalism that encourage a disturbing disregard
for the lives and suffering of non-Americans; and
unencumbered power for narrow interests that may find
the threat and spoils of war far more profitable than
diplomatic success or lasting peace.</p>
<p>What would “breaking free” look like for the APA? Here
are several examples. The APA can advocate for an end to
the indefinite detention of Guantánamo detainees and for
closure of that infamous facility, where imprisonment
violates <a
href="https://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/int_cat_coc_usa_18893_e.pdf">international
law</a> and has caused severe <a
href="http://www.cvt.org/sites/default/files/attachments/u10/downloads/CVT-Testimony-Senate-ClosingGuantanamo-2013July.pdf">psychological
harm</a>. The APA can help the public better
understand that the psychology fostering exaggerated
fears of terrorism can also lead to unscientific <a
href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/almost-addicted/201607/the-dangers-countering-violent-extremism-cve-programs">programs</a> that
jeopardize civil liberties—especially for those who are
already most vulnerable to prejudice and
stereotyping. The APA can raise alarm about
psychological strategies behind today’s military <a
href="https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/03/27/most-american-youth-first-meet-a-recruiter-at-17-but-the-army-wants-to-start-younger/">recruitment</a> efforts,
which increasingly target younger teens and those
whose financial and educational circumstances make them
especially susceptible to false assurances or
misrepresentations. The APA can call for reductions in
our massive and burgeoning military budget that chokes
off funding for domestic <a
href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-budget-2020/">programs</a>—Medicare,
Medicaid, affordable housing, public transportation,
student aid—that are essential contributors to our
nation’s psychological health. And the APA can implement
stronger internal policies to ensure that its own
deliberations are not <a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308607679_Recommendations_to_The_American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science_Committee_on_Scientific_Freedom_and_Responsibility_for_Constraints_on_Defense_Contractors_in_the_Health_Behavioral_and_So">unduly
influenced</a> by those who benefit from financial
ties to the military-intelligence establishment.</p>
<p>Urging these and related changes at the APA does not
diminish appreciation for the valuable work of
psychologists—and other health professionals—who care
for our soldiers and veterans. The stresses of military
service are daunting, ranging from lengthy family
dislocations to combat experiences that involve exposure
to unspeakable brutality and the risk of injury and
death. Even after returning home from the battlefield,
heightened dangers of PTSD, substance use, and
suicide remain. Certainly, those who serve deserve our
abiding respect and compassionate support. But we do
everyone a disservice when we fail to question and
challenge a system and a culture that so readily place
them—and others—in harm’s way. It is time for the APA
and its members to decide whether the world’s largest
psychological association is ready to overcome its
“addiction” and help lead us forward.</p>
<p><em>NOTE: Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a past president of
Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a member of
the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, and the
author of <a
href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0999823701">POLITICAL
MIND GAMES: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding
of What’s Happening, What’s Right, and What’s
Possible.</a> Roy’s website is <a
href="http://www.royeidelson.com/">www.royeidelson.com</a> and
he is on Twitter at <a
href="https://twitter.com/royeidelson">@royeidelson</a>.</em></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://freedomarchives.org/">https://freedomarchives.org/</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>