November 2008

APA MEMBERS SPEAK OUT – VOTE FOR NEW REFERENDUM AGAINST TORTURE

Submitted by
Jennifer Kaupp, Ph.D.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
831-429-9314

Jon Girvetz, Ph.D.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
831-425-0272
Co-Chairs, Social Issues Forum

"… the membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a referendum banning participation of APA member psychologists in U.S. detention facilities, such as Guantanamo or the CIA's secret "black sites" operating outside of or in violation of international law or the Constitution. The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology congratulates our colleagues, and in particular, we congratulate the referendum authors – Dan Aalbers, Brad Olson, and Ruth Fallenbaum – as well as the activists withholding dues and otherwise protesting professional collusion with unethical behavior." (Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, 9/17/08)

In a letter dated October 2, 2008, APA President Alan Kazdin advised President Bush about the new APA policy that unequivocally prohibits APA member psychologists from participation in military interrogations and on CIA rendition teams. The text of the letter follows, but if you want to see it with your own eyes go to http://www.apa.org/releases/kazdin-to-bush1008.pdf.

October 8, 2008

Dear Mr. President:
 
On behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA), I am writing to inform you and your administration of a significant change in our association's policy that limits the roles of psychologists in certain unlawful detention settings where the human rights of detainees are being violated, such as has occurred at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at so-called CIA black sites around the world.  This new policy, which pertains to detention settings that operate outside of, or in violation of, international law or the U.S. Constitution, was voted on by APA members and is in the process of being implemented.
 
The effect of this new policy is to prohibit psychologists from any involvement in interrogations or any other operational procedures at detention sites that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture).  In such unlawful detention settings, persons are deprived of basic human rights and legal protections, including the right to independent judicial review of their detention.  The roles of psychologists at such sites would now be limited to working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights, or to providing treatment to military personnel.
 
For the past 20 years, APA policy has unequivocally condemned torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, which can arise from interrogation procedures or conditions of confinement.  Unlike our previous policies, which had expressed grave concerns about settings where persons are deprived of human rights and had offered support to psychologists who refused to work in such settings, APA's new policy now prohibits psychologists from working in such settings, save for the exceptions cited above.  To be clear, our policy limits psychologists to working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights unless they are offering therapeutic services to other military personnel.
 
There have been many reports, from credible sources, of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees during your term in office.  Therefore, the American Psychological Association strongly calls on you and your administration to safeguard the physical and psychological welfare and human rights of individuals incarcerated by the U.S. government in such detention centers and to investigate their treatment to ensure that the highest ethical standards are being upheld.  We further call on you to establish policies and procedures to ensure the independent judicial review of these detentions and to afford the persons being detained all rights guaranteed to them under the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
 
Best wishes,
Alan E. Kazdin, Ph.D., ABPP
President, American Psychological Association

Social Issues Forum Commentary

Thanks to all of you who signed the petition, wrote letters, withheld APA dues, and voted for the Referendum. This is very good news for psychology, though not without caveats.

While the APA leadership appears to be listening to members’ concerns, and has come a long way since the first Resolution, there are questions about its implementation. The MBPA position remains unchanged – we are unequivocally opposed to any psychologist involvement in military interrogations and on rendition teams. We long ago distanced ourselves from the Bush administration torture doctrine, but worry about lingering effects. On March 8, 2008, in obstinate and angry defiance, the president vetoed a Congressional bill prohibiting the use of torture techniques in military interrogations. Ignoring international law, the advice of military commanders and FBI personnel, the will of the people, and evidence that torture doesn't work, George W. Bush satisfied his unbridled aggression and gave the CIA carte blanche to carry out “enhanced” interrogations, including waterboarding, on enemy combatants and terror suspects. And in his propaganda address to the nation he lied about terrorist plots successfully aborted because of enhanced interrogation techniques (torture) and, exploiting base fears, insisted that such methods are crucial to Americans’ continued safety. Most of us know that his eight-year reign of terror has made us less safe. Americans are disliked around the world, soldiers are more likely to be tortured upon capture, and those who have participated in harsh interrogations, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and rendition sites, are suffering serious psychosocial, professional, and ethical consequences (e.g., Sharrock, Mother Jones, March/April 2008).

A lot has happened since then. Extremely unpopular and relatively powerless, the Bush Administration is being pressured to close the infamous Guantanamo Bay. While he and other key players involved in the shameful business of torture are audaciously seeking retroactive immunity for war crimes, serious questions remain about what to do with the detainees. Whether guilty or innocent, the veracity of information obtained through harsh interrogation (torture) is questionable and probably inadmissible in a court of law. Fortunately, a more thoughtful, ethical President Obama will oversee this process. It is my fervent hope that an ethical APA will prevail.

For a bit of history on psychology’s involvement in torture, read “What is Happening to Psychology?” (Kaupp, Monterey Bay Psychologist, 2007). And Stephen Soldz writes in Psychologists for Social Responsibility about next steps in the struggle against torture. The entire PsySR newsletter is available at http://www.psysr.org/newsletter and the extracted article is available at http://tinyurl.com/5zw7c9.

The MBPA Social Issues Forum will continue to follow the APA/military interrogations controversy, and report the progress to you. We are categorically opposed to any and all psychologist involvement in military interrogations, CIA Black Site activities, and renditions as consultants, participants, even as the voice of restraint or as moral watchdogs. I am proud of MBPA for publicly voicing our ethical values and beliefs. But for now, let us celebrate this first step toward a more ethical APA with Dr. Kazdin's letter.