<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>Psychologists Reject the Dark Side:<br>
</b></font></h1><h3><font size=3><b>American Psychological Association
Members Reject Participation in Bush Detention
Centers</b></font></h3><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18906" eudora="autourl">
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18906<br><br>
</a>September 24, 2008 By <b>Stephen Soldz</b> <br>
and <b>Brad Olson<br><br>
</b>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." <br>
<br>
Since 2004, news reports and
<a href="http://counterpunch.org/soldz06072007.html">government
documents</a> have provided evidence of the central role of psychologists
in designing, implementing, and disseminating the administrations'
program of abusive interrogations, whether conducted by the
<a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?printable=true¤tPage=all">
CIA</a> in its secret
"<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true">
black sites</a>" or by the Defense Department at
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4?printable=truehttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4?printable=true">
Guantánamo</a>, and in
<a href="http://counterpunch.org/soldz05272008.html">Iraq</a> and
Afghanistan. As Vanity Fair reporter Katherine Eban described the CIA
side of this equation:<br>
<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
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: <br>
<br>
"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. <b>That memo had been drafted by a psychologist
and psychiatrist</b> from GTMO who, a couple of weeks earlier, had
attended the training given at Fort Bragg by instructors from the JPRA
SERE school.<br>
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."<br>
<br>
The
<a href="http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Documents.SASC.061708.pdf">
minutes</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/15/press-release-military-psychologist-refuses-to-testify-about-abusive-treatment-of-detainee-at-guantanamo/">
recommended</a> 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
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/202415/685/395/568118">
suicide attempt</a> by Jawad. <br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/apa_faq_coalition_comments_v12c.pdf">
appointed a task force</a> 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
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16711">
anti-torture resolutions</a> while
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/26/3414/">rejecting
attempts</a> to withdraw psychologists from sites that violated human
rights or even from the interrogations at Guantanamo and the CIA's black
sites. <br>
<br>
The APA also ignored
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0607-06.htm">Open
Letters</a> from hundreds of their members. At times these efforts became
ludicrous doublespeak. An APA Board member, for instance, sent around an
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Torture-Trainers-and-t-by-Stephen-Soldz-080624-297.html">
email</a> 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
<a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19994.htm">
claimed</a> 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
<a href="http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/?page_id=20">maintained</a>
its <a href="http://200.19.92.28/psicologia/pdf/101/artigo_13.pdf">close
ties</a> to the military-intelligence establishment. <br>
<br>
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 <a href="http://kspope.com/apa/index.php">ethics
committee Chair</a>, a
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-did-the-American-Psych-by-Bryant-Welch-080727-467.html">
former Executive Director</a> of one of the associations' major
divisions, and a former
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/10/07/noted-psychologist-beth-shinn-resigns-from-american-psychological-association/">
division President</a> - resigned in protest. New York Times
bestselling author Mary Pipher
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_pip_070824_why_i_ve_returned_my.htm">
returned an award</a> 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
<a href="http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2007-08-02.html">
U.S. psychological torture</a> and
<a href="http://actnow-phr.org/phr/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=5944351">
many times</a> called for
<a href="http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/letter-2008-08-14.html">
changes</a> in APA policies permitting participation in the settings
where that torture occurred.<br>
<br>
After years of failing to effect real change through the associations'
Council of Representatives - which
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-did-the-American-Psych-by-Bryant-Welch-080727-467.html">
infrequently challenges</a> 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
<a href="http://www.withholdapadues.com/">withholdapadues group</a> 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 <i>the Geneva Conventions don't apply</i>] or
in violation of [as in <i>enhanced interrogations are approved</i>]
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. <br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GDH4V8A_Qc&eurl=http://www.psysr.org/about/committees/endtorture/voteyes.php">
YouTube</a> and
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=752182170409437361">
Google Video</a>.
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/05/09/community-psychologist-write-apa-leadership-on-interrogations/">
Two</a> APA
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/22/society-for-the-scientific-study-of-social-issues-spssi-supports-apa-referendum/">
divisions</a> lined up in support. Conversation about the referendum on
psychologist-run listservs was greater than that on any other topic in
memory.<br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/08/support-for-psychologists-referendum-against-collusion-in-detainee-abuse/">
statement</a> 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. <br>
<br>
In an unprecedented development, illustrating the high stakes involved in
the potential policy change, the Defense Department issued a
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/22/defense-department-issues-statement-opposing-apa-referendum-there-are-no-neutrals-there/">
press release</a> with "talking points" opposing the
referendum. The first two of these talking points unintentionally
emphasized the need for the referendum:<br>
<br>
"Humane treatment and ensuring detainees are not subjected to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is required in accordance
with U.S. law.<br>
<br>
Behavioral science consultants do NOT support interrogations that aren't
in accordance with applicable law."<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
The referendum ballots went out by mail on August 1<sup>st</sup> and were
due back on September 15<sup>th</sup>. 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. <br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_10a06.pdf">
American Medical Association</a> and the
<a href="http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200601.pdf">
American Psychiatric Association</a> 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.<br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Goodman-PsychologistsInDenial.pdf">
struggle of dissident psychologists</a> 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.
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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
<a href="http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/">active campaign</a>. 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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Activist psychologists and their allies also are pushing for
accountability for past abuses by psychologists. While some
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/08/15/press-release-military-psychologist-refuses-to-testify-about-abusive-treatment-of-detainee-at-guantanamo/">
psychologists</a>, including
<a href="http://ajobonline.com/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140">APA
members</a>, have been documented to have participated in abuses likely
constituting torture, the APA ethics committee has consistently
<a href="http://counterpunch.org/bond05192008.html">stalled action
against</a> or refused to open cases against these psychologists. This
needs to stop.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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
"<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/know-hope.html">
Know Hope</a>." 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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:ssoldz@bgsp.edu">Stephen Soldz</a> is a psychoanalyst,
psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the
<a href="http://www.bgsp.edu/">Boston Graduate School of
Psychoanalysis</a>. He maintains the
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/ORR.htm">Psychoanalysts for
Peace and Justice</a> web site and the
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/">Psyche, Science, and
Society</a> 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.<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:b-olson@northwestern.edu">Brad Olson</a> 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
<a href="http://www.withholdapadues.com/">withholdAPAdues</a>, and a
co-sponsor of the recently passed APA referendum.<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>