Bush: I Personally Authorized Torture | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet

Psyche, Science, and Society » Video: Torture and American Psyche forum

Stephen Soldz: APA Supports Psychologist Engagement in Interrogations

Psyche, Science, and Society » Isolation driving Guantanamo detainees insane: Will APA act?

Download the CLOSE GUANTÁNAMO Toolkit now to find out how you can organize for January 11 at home, in your office, on campus, in your community, and online.

American Civil Liberties Union : Close Guantánamo

By Bernice Lott,
Faculty members of the Psychology Department at the University of Rhode Island, by majority vote, have signed a resolution stating that “direct or indirect participation by psychologists in interrogations of prisoners incarcerated in foreign detention centers that do not afford prisoners internationally recognized due process of law is unethical.”

URI’s resolution is part of a growing grassroots effort to urge the American Psychological Association to move beyond its current position, which allows psychologists working in foreign prisons to assist teams in certain kinds of interrogations.

The association’s failure to rule out all participation has been the subject of protest among some of its members, some of whom are withholding dues while others are resigning. Psychologists at six colleges and universities, URI among them, have passed resolutions in hopes that the APA will reconsider its stance.

APA’s policy regarding the ethics of psychologists working as behavioral science consultants to the military or CIA as it interrogates “enemy combatants” in foreign prisons has evolved from a taskforce report in 2005 that was never adopted or approved by the Council of Representatives to resolutions in 2006 and 2007 that were debated and approved.

The 2007 resolution reaffirms APA’s condemnation of torture and other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment under any conditions. But the APA Council did not approve an amendment asking psychologists to refrain from participating in any way in the interrogation of foreign detainees, but to limit their role “as health personnel to the provision of psychological treatment.” This amendment was not approved despite the fact that the 2007 resolution expresses concern over the conditions of detainment in settings where detainees are deprived of international and human rights. In public statements, APA leaders maintain the wisdom of continuing to be “engaged” in the interrogation process.

I disagree. In detainee camps, psychologists work in secrecy; have not obtained informed consent; are not subject to legal, professional, and community oversight; and the rights of prisoners are not protected by constitutional and other guarantees.

Because of these circumstances, we should remove the focus on individual psychologists’ ethics, which has been at the forefront of our discussions. By centering attention on the behavior of individual psychologists, we have neglected to ask the more important social psychological questions having to do with situation and context. When psychologists work in hospitals, clinics, courts, prisons, etc. in this country, there are rules and a relatively open process; there is potential oversight by lawyers, family, and community.

Can our ethics say it is okay to work in situations where this is not the case, in secrecy, in places where violations of human rights systematically occur as a matter of institutional policy? Where prisoners are detained for indefinite periods and not charged with any crimes? Where they are not protected by international human rights protocols or provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

Would we have condoned psychologists working (in any role) in Nazi concentration camps? Should psychologists work in any setting where processes are not subject to open review by courts, community, and oversight groups?

I believe the correct and ethical response must be no.

Bernice Lott is professor emerita of psychology and women’s studies at the University of Rhode Island.

November 19, 2007

Dr. Sharon Brehm
President, American Psychological Association
Department of Psychology
1101 East 10th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405-7007

Dear Dr. Brehm:

I have been a member of the American Psychological Association since 1962 and am a Fellow of Division 27, but I hereby resign from the organization. In stating my reasons, I can do no better than refer you to the attached copy of the October 7, 2007 letter to you from Marybeth Shinn, Professor of Applied Psychology and Public Policy at New York University, and soon to be my faculty colleague in Vanderbilt’s Department of Human and Organizational Development. I was pleased to have received and commented on earlier drafts of Professor Shinn’s eloquent and thorough argument, and I applaud her candor and courage.

I have been teaching ethics to undergraduate and graduate students for almost 20 years and was always pleased and proud to recommend the APA Code as perhaps the finest professional code of ethics in the world. I was particularly proud because of the role my mentor, Nicholas Hobbs, played in developing the first version of the code in the 1950s. This semester, I was ashamed to have to tell my students about the ethically problematic APA position on interrogation and torture that has been emerging over the last several months.

In sum, the situation has become intolerable, and I submit my resignation with deep sorrow and regret.

Sincerely,

Paul R. Dokecki [ paul.r.dokecki@vanderbilt.edu ]
Professor of Psychology
Dept. of Human and Organizational Development
Peabody College #6 Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37203

“because the American Psychological Association continues to condone psychologists’ work in detention centers that violate international law and because of actions by APA’s leadership to discourage dissent from its policies in this matter.”

Beth Shinn resigns from American Psychological Association