Torture, Psychology, and Daniel Inouye: The True Story Behind Psychology's Role in Torture

A seventeen-year-old boy is locked in an interrogation cell in Guantanamo. He breaks down crying and says he wants his family. The interrogator senses the boy is psychologically vulnerable and consults with a psychologist. The psychologist has evaluated the boy prior to the questioning and says, "Tell him his family has forgotten him." The psychologist also prescribes "linguistic isolation" (not letting him have contact with anyone who speaks his language.) The boy attempts suicide a few weeks later. On the eve of the boy's trial, the psychologist apparently fearing her testimony will only further implicate her, indicates she will plead the Fifth Amendment if she is called to the stand. The trial is postponed, leaving the boy in further limbo.

The military psychologist is merely a foot soldier in psychology's participation in torture. It goes much deeper. We now know that psychologists helped design and implement significant segments of George Bush's torture program. Despite their credo, "Above all, do no harm," two psychologists developed instruments of psychological torture. They "reversed engineered" psychological principles. They used the very therapeutic interventions psychologists use to ameliorate psychological suffering, but "reversed" their direction to create psychological distress and instability. If one's reality sense is threatened, a good therapist validates and supports it as appropriate. In reverse engineering, the environment is deliberately made more confusing and the victim's trust in his own perceptions is intentionally undermined. In extreme form, this can ultimately drive a person to insanity from which some never come back. These were the types of techniques that were used on the seventeen-year-old detainee and others.

Military psychologists also colluded with the Justice Department to help CIA operatives circumvent the legal prohibitions against torture. Under the Justice Department definition of torture, if a detainee was sent to a psychologist for a mental health evaluation prior to interrogation it was per se evidence that the interrogator had no legal intent to torture the detainee because the referral "demonstrated concern" for the welfare of the detainee.

Most remarkably of all, this whole process occurred under a protective "ethical" seal from the American Psychological Association (APA), psychologists' largest national organization. The APA governance repeatedly rejected calls from its membership for APA to join other health organizations in declaring participation in Bush detention center interrogations unethical.

Most psychologists are appalled at what the APA has done, and many, like me, have resigned from the APA. But the true story behind APA's involvement with torture has not been fully told.

I have had ample opportunity to observe both the inner workings of the APA and the personalities and organizational vicissitudes that have affected it over the last two decades. For most of the twenty-year period from 1983 to 2003, I either worked inside the APA central office as the first Executive Director of the APA Practice Directorate, or I served in various governance positions, including Chair of the APA Board of Professional Affairs and member of the APA Council of Representatives. Since leaving APA I have maintained a keen interest in the organization.

The transformation of APA, in the past decade, from a historically liberal organization to an authoritarian one that actively assists in torture has been an astonishing process. As with many usurpations of democratic liberal values, the transformation was accomplished by a surprisingly small number of people. APA is an invaluable case study in the psychological manipulations that influence our governmental and non-governmental institutions.

To explain APA's behavior two questions have to be answered. First, how did the APA develop the connections with the military that fostered the shameful role it has played in torture? Second, why did the APA governance not join other health professions in prohibiting participation in the Bush Administration's "enhanced interrogations," as APA's rank and file members were demanding?

The APA-military connection

One source of APA's military connections is obvious to anyone who has worked at APA over the last twenty-five years. Strangely, it has been overlooked by the media. Since the early 1980's, APA has had a unique relationship with Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye's office. Inouye was an honored WWII veteran, a Japanese American who himself was a medical volunteer in the midst of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He entered office in 1962. For much of the '70s, he was Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Later he became, and is currently, the chair of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which, of course, makes up the largest chunk of federal discretionary spending and is why economists often split discretionary government funding into defense spending versus "everything else." This appropriations committee covers not only all of the armed forces but the CIA as well. Put succinctly, Inouye controls the military purse strings, and is very influential with military brass.

One of Inouye's administrative assistants, psychologist Patrick Deleon, has long been active in the APA and served a term in 2000 as APA president. For significant periods of time DeLeon has literally directed APA staff on federal policy matters and has dominated the APA governance on political matters. For over twenty-five years, relationships between the APA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have been strongly encouraged and closely coordinated by DeLeon.

Inouye himself has served as an apologist for the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp ("Gitmo") since the inception of the War on Terror. In a press briefing at the U.S. State Department, held shortly after his trip to Gitmo in February of 2002, Inouye affirmed Rumsfeld's propagandist vision of the site, and then remarked: "Watching our men and women treat these detainees was rather impressive. They would go out of their way to be considerate. ..."

From what we know now, that is true, but not in the benevolent way Inouye implied. Inouye's comments bore a chilling similarity to Barbara Bush's famous comments about the alleged good fortune of Katrina victims, in the Houston Astrodome. The detainees, he said, are being treated "in some ways better than we treat our people." (R. Burns, Associated Press, 2002). And he compared the Guantanamo climate to Hawaii's. (It is "somewhat warmer.")

More significantly, it was Inouye who recently stripped the funding needed for closing Gitmo from a supplemental appropriations bill. This "Inouye Amendment," threw a stick in the spokes of any U.S. movement away from the worst of global war on terror policies. In announcing the funding cut, Inouye's press release was a remarkable illustration of Orwellian "newspeak," ostensibly supporting the very opposite of what he was doing:

"But let me be clear. We need to close the Guantanamo prison. Yes, it is a fine facility. I, too, have visited the site. Yes, the detainees are being well cared for. Our servicemen and servicewomen are doing great work. But the fact of the matter is Guantanamo is a symbol of the wrongdoings which have occurred, and we must eliminate that connection." (Inouye, Press Release May 20, 2009).

DeLeon's connection with Inouye is not by any means the only APA connection with defense interests. In 1951 the military established The Human Resource Research Organization (HumRRO) to develop techniques for "psychological warfare." HumRRO was run by psychologist Dr. Meredith Crawford who spent ten years as APA treasurer and was deeply involved in APA activities for three decades. Crawford's former student, Raymond Fowler, became Chief Executive Officer of APA in 1989 and stayed in that position until 2003. Today, fifty-five percent of HumRRO's budget comes from the military.

As CEO, Fowler hired his two most important lieutenants from HumRRO, Chief Financial Officer, Charles "Jack" McKay, and in-house attorney, James McHugh. Both men have now, after lengthy APA tenures, left the APA and returned to HumRRO in very senior roles. McHugh is Chairman of the HumRRO Board of Trustees and McKay is Vice-Chairman and Treasurer. The current President of HumRRO, psychologist William Strickland, has been an outspoken supporter of APA's policies on the torture issue. He served on the APA Council of Representatives throughout the APA deliberations on torture.

Whether and how the longstanding relationships and frequent circulation of key personnel between APA and HumRRO positions have shaped APA's involvement with the military is unclear, but given recent events, it certainly warrants more careful scrutiny than it has received from psychologists. In fact, I do not believe many psychologists are even aware of these relationships.

Regardless of HumRRO's role, however, as psychologists, most APA governance members have little Washington political experience. For them, Patrick DeLeon, because of his connection with Inouye, is perceived as a canny psychology politician and political force on Capitol Hill. Regardless of the accuracy of that perception, I have no reason to think DeLeon is a corrupt or evil person. Instead, from my perspective, the most interesting aspect of DeLeon has always been his apparent preoccupation with issues of status for psychologists, irrespective of the issues' actual significance either for psychologists or the public.

DeLeon wanted to make sure a psychologist, not just physicians, for example, would be eligible to fill this or that position in the Veteran's Administration, and he campaigned for years for VA psychologists to receive a minuscule pay increase when they became board certified. On the whole, I found these matters harmless and of at least some marginal benefit to people. Using funding from the Department of Defense he has also launched a campaign for psychologists to be given legal rights to prescribe psychiatric medications.

The torture issue is, of course, quite different. Viewed through the eyes of DeLeon's adherents, psychology's new found role as architects of a central component of the war on terror was a tremendous "victory" for the field of psychology. That it involved torture was peripheral, obscured by the headiness of being involved in high-level, important, clandestine government affairs. In discussions about APA's role in the interrogations, a senior member of the APA governance described himself as "addicted" to the television show 24. Now he had his own reality TV show.

DeLeon's influence in the APA and with many individual psychologists, especially those from Hawaii, came in very handy for Inouye in his efforts to support the Department of Defense. When the military needed a mental health professional to help implement its interrogation procedures, and the other professions subsequently refused to comply, the military had a friend in Senator Inouye's office, one that could reap the political dividends of seeds sown by DeLeon over many years.While we are only now uncovering the names of the individuals who participated most directly in the interrogations, I think a surprising number of them will turn out to be people brought into the military through Inouye's office, many by DeLeon himself.

APA's Organizational Decline

But this leads to the second and more complex question. Why did the governance of the APA let this happen under the apparent imprimatur of the world's largest organization of psychologists? Some people assume APA's horrifying recent behavior involved large sums of money changing hands. I could certainly be wrong, but I think the more likely (and more remarkable and pressing) mechanism has little to do with money. For reasons described below, the APA leaders who were making these decisions simply exercised judgment that was both bad and insensitive to the realities of human suffering. In my opinion, schooled by 25 years of experience with the APA, it was neither greed nor financial corruption that brought the APA governance into alliance with the Bush Administration. Instead, it was a malignant organizational grandiosity that first weakened the APA and then, ultimately, allowed military and intelligence agencies to have their way with the APA throughout the Bush Administration.

But how did the APA, of all organizations, get this way? What led to this grandiose culture? An organization does not rise or fall with a single event any more than the fall of Rome truly occurred in 476 AD. The culture of grandiosity was carefully cultivated for more than a decade by a few self-interested individuals.

What has been observable and unarguable about the APA of recent years is that the pluralistic and multi-faceted governance process I witnessed when first entering the APA in the early 1980's was sharply curtailed during the 1990's. Differences of opinion disappeared, and the APA suffered a terrible organizational decline. Increasingly inbred and infantilized under the tightly controlled administration of Raymond Fowler, the association agenda was primarily and at times exclusively financial, focused on making money either through real estate ventures or through what I and others felt was the unnecessarily harsh financial treatment of lower level APA employees.

Whatever one's view of APA, few can dispute that Fowler, more than any other individual, made APA what it is today. The CEO of APA for almost fifteen years, Fowler served in one capacity or another on the APA Board of Directors for twenty-five consecutive years. While his supporters would characterize him as "astute" and his critics as "devious," few could reasonably disagree that Fowler was the main mover in the APA for the fifteen years leading up to the torture debacle.

Most peculiarly, Fowler's "agenda" for APA was encapsulated in the phrase "Working Together," a noble idea that to the best of my knowledge was never attached to any actual substantive agenda. Instead, it served as a means of social control, a subtle injunction against raising any of the conflict-laden issues, challenges, or ideas that need to be addressed in any vital and accountable organization. The governance of the APA became either conformist or placid and increasingly detached from the real world.

The result was that much of the activity of the APA Council of Representatives, the legislative group with ultimate authority in the APA governance, turned away from substantive matters into an odd system of fawning over one another. Many members appeared to simply bathe in the good feeling that came from "working together." The bath was characterized by grandiose self-referents and shared lofty opinions of one another. As it became more and more detached from reality, the organizational dysfunction became more pronounced, but this was ignored and obscured by the self-congratulatory organizational style. During this period, isolated dissent from rank-and-file members was stifled with a heavy-handed letter from the APA attorney threatening legal action or by communications from prominent members of the APA governance threatening "ethics" charges if policy protests were not discontinued. (It is unethical for psychologists to lie, and I can attest that one former APA president concluded that disagreeing with him was per se "lying.")

Deliberations on Torture

This same grandiosity was ubiquitous in the governance's rhetoric at the heart of the Association's discussions on torture. Banning psychologists' participation in reputed torture mills was clearly unnecessary, proponents of the APA policy argued. To do so would be an "insult" to military psychologists everywhere. No psychologist would ever engage in torture. Insisting on a change in APA policy reflected a mean-spirited attitude toward the military psychologists. The supporters of the APA policy managed to transform the military into the victims in the interrogation issue.

In the end, however, it was psychologists' self-assumed importance that carried the day on the torture issue. Psychologists' participation in these detention centers, it was asserted, was an antidote to torture, since psychologists' very presence could protect the potential torture victims (presumably from Rumsfeld and Cheney, no less!). The debates on the APA Council floor, year after year, concluded with the general consensus that, indeed, psychology was very, very important to our nation's security.

We psychologists were both too good and too important to join our professional colleagues in other professions who were taking an absolutist moral position against one of the most shameful eras in our country's history. While the matter was clearly orchestrated by others, it was this self-reinforcing grandiosity that led the traditionally liberal APA governance down the slippery slope to the Bush Administration's torture program.

During this period I had numerous personal communications with members of the APA governance structure in an attempt to dissuade them from ignoring the rank-and-file psychologists who abhorred the APA's position. I have been involved in many policy disagreements over the course of my career, but the smugness and illogic that characterized the response to these efforts were astonishing and went far beyond normal, even heated, give and take. Most dramatically, the intelligence that I have always found to characterize the profession of psychology was sorely lacking.

Outside the self-absorbed culture of the current APA governance, to the rest of the world, the APA arguments simply do not pass the red-face test for credibility. Instead, their transparent disingenuousness only made the APA sound embarrassingly like apologists for the Bush Administration.

Conclusion

The inability to deliberate rationally on the torture issue was but the tragic denouement of an organizational process that was actually set in motion in the early 1990's, largely to serve the convenience of a very small number of individuals. As a result of the management style of the 90's, the governance of APA was ill prepared for thoughtful deliberation on a matter as important as the torture issue. The governance was simply over its head in trying to effectively address such a socially and ethically consequential issue. This was especially true in a debate in which one side had organized support from powerful military interests, then-current APA presidents like Gerald Koocher and Ronald Levant, and Senator Inouye's office all pushing for APA involvement in the interrogations. Few people stood up to them, and those who did were people who were inexperienced in the duplicity and manipulative style of politics that characterized APA.

With the increasing uproar from the membership and the media, APA's more recently elected leaders and the current CEO, Norman Anderson, have been extraordinarily quiet on the subject of psychologist and APA involvement in the torture issue. Instead, second level APA employees have been put out front to defend the APA position to the membership and to the public. These are almost exclusively people hired by Fowler to fit into his carefully designed model of an organization that would be controllable, if somewhat non-dynamic and uncreative. Thus, the public relations staff Fowler hired, the staff legal and psychological expertise he hired, and most remarkably his ethics director have all served as the "face of APA" on the torture issue in recent years. Not surprisingly, forced to function under the watchful eye of the public they have not acquitted themselves in credible fashion.

In a recent book, I used several organizational examples to illustrate that many of the same techniques of political manipulation used in the Bush Administration were used in other organizational settings. Many of those examples were drawn from the APA. At the time of writing I never dreamed the techniques would lead to APA's complicity in torture.

But such is the fate of a regressed and chronically manipulated organization. Despite being an organization of psychologists, APA has been subjected to considerable manipulation but to very little analysis. The people who run APA have "reverse engineered" the very field of psychology itself and used it against its own membership.

Psychologists are amongst the most moral and ethical people I know. They deserved better from their national organization, just as Americans throughout that same era deserved better from their government.
_____________________________________________________________________
Bryant Welch is a clinical psychologist and attorney living in Hilton Head, SC. He is the author of State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind, St. Martins Press, 2008.)

Comments

[unitron]

"Using funding from the Department of Defense he has also launched a campaign for psychologists to be given legal rights to prescribe psychiatric medication­s."

No medical degree, no prescribing. No exceptions.

[wallyone]

Psychologists can be idiots. Witness the "recovered memory" and "multiple personality/alters" debacles into which they flocked lemming-like (while doing irreparable harm), and you know how foolish many psychologists really are.

[Bryant Welch - Huffpost Blogger]

All human beings can be idiots. As a whole psychologists are very caring and bright people. They did not deserve this any more than the American people deserved George Bush. We all need to look at why we as a nation (or with psychology as a profession) were so effectively duped. This iis what I have tried to address in my book State of Confusion:Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind.

[Marnie1]

Hopefully, perhaps ACLU and similar organizations can join forces, investigate, and bring actions to have licenses revoked from individual professionals from multiple fields, medical, legal etc.
Unfortunately, our legal system seems unwilling to bring criminal charges against the hundreds, probably thousands of Bushies who should face trial.

At least if some are professionally punished it might serve as a warning in the future that there are consequences to those who misuse their profession.

[FallingDog]

I dropped out of the APA 15 years ago because even then, I saw the organization losing its way. I am a solo private practitioner in a rural setting and have felt for a long time that the APA does not represent me or my clinical practice. With the APA's refusal to distance itself from torture practices, I have been happier than ever about the decision I made 15 years ago. The APA does not speak for me, especially now.

[Arion]

Deepest thanks, Dr. Welch. A clinical psychologist who dropped out of the APA many years ago (over unrelated political issues), I nonetheless fel the deepest sense of shame over the role of psychologists at Guantanamo. I hope your brilliant expose' is followed up by the membership cleaning house with an entirely new slate of officers dedicated to cleaning house.

[Bryant Welch - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for your comments. I, of course, agree with you that a housecleaning is needed. The difficulty is that there is only one position in the APA that is nominated and elected directly by the membership at large. That is the president. The APA Council of Representatives was significantly enlarged several years ago ostensibly to "increase representa­tion." What it did, however, was to render the Council too large to function effectively. Thus, the Council became much more subservient to the 11 person Board of Directors who could in turn then be easily controlled by the CEO. This is why with a very small number of people it was possible to control the whole profession and pull off the torture debacle.

[chaya]

"I have no reason to think DeLeon is a corrupt or evil person. Instead, from my perspective, the most interesting aspect of DeLeon has always been his apparent preoccupation with issues of status for psychologists, irrespective of the issues' actual significance either for psychologists or the public."

While an expert in psychology, you seem to be forgetting history. Nearly all evil in this world is born from "preoccupation with issues of status."

[GreatNews27]

Not surprising at all. This is a barbaric country inhabited by barbaric people bent on conquest and the acquisition of wealth by any means. What is surprising is that anyone would care about it. Let's review our elected representative's views and comments on torture: bygones, water under the bridge, nothing to see here, all in the past, let's move forward, no point in looking back, just following orders, no one was really hurt, it saved lives, it was legal, there is no evidence, USA, USA, USA. We're America, our intentions are noble by definition.

[disgustedbyitall]

Given America's obsession with all things Nazi (the History Channel line-up is truly creepy), I think a well-placed demonstration outside an APA convention would garner enough headlines to bring some pressure to bear. I doubt the rank and file APA members would want to see themselves associated with Nazi war crimes on the evening news. With all the truly ridiculous crap on the air today, I doubt it would take much effort for a decent PR team to make this into a truly embarrassing affair for the APA leadership, Inouye and his staff, and all the morally bankrupt people involved in putting military conquest ahead of human compassion.

[jmpurser]

Thank you for reporting on not only the scope but history of this crime.

Without a real war crimes investigation and trial I'm afraid we have to consider every member of the armed forces, intelligence community, and their hired assistants as implicated in war crimes. Think of them as concentration camp guards and officers.

President Obama has not only failed justice with his "looking forward" excuse he's failed the innocent members of those services as well.

[PsychRebel]

No, there was no leadership change. Last September, the membership, by a 59% vote, endorsed a referendum that decisively repudiated the long-standing leadership position. The leadership is still acting to redefine this referendum so that it is meaningless.

A reform candidate, Steven Reisner, ran in last years election, but lost. APA is still totally controlled by the pro-milita­ry/intelli­gence establishment faction. Since 911, they have been desperate to show what great value psychology can make to the intelligence community. They have not shifted one bit. Only changed the rhetoric, under withering criticism from aroused members.

[Bryant Welch - Huffpost Blogger]

You are correct. There has been no change in APA leadership since this all occurred. The recently elected president served on the board of directors that approved all of this with no visible sign of dissent. While Steven Reisner ran a very admirable campaign and did better than most outside candidates, it was very difficult because the inner sanctum of APA has been very resentful that members have been so critical of their position. Reisner was one of the earliest critics.

[oncethere]

Interesting article. You would think psychologists would have enough self-awareness and psychological maturity to support and encourage the growth and independence of others and to avoid the fawning idealization of leaders---but No. The APA's interest in "status" issues and financial reward suggests an absence of any substance or any interest in the things that really matter.

Psychologists are not---should not be---guardians of the status quo, but, on the other hand, they do have to help people "adjust to reality." The modern therapies, cognitive, reality-based, behavioral, all have as their starting point, "reality," and all seem to view the creative process of inventing oneself, following one's instincts, as irrelevant, a sign of pathology. Cognitive therapy is part and parcel of the growing concreteness and shallowness of the American mind and it is no wonder that the APA, which endorses it, has drifted into collusion with Bush.

[kellysmalltowngirl]

Yes, that reflects my observation of the profession over the last 20 years.

[OkieIntellectual]

I blame the rise and popularity of CBT on the HMO / PPO culture of US healthcare. CBT is proven in study after study to provide fast, lasting results in the treatment of specific behavioral issues. Insurance companies like this because it is cheap. However, the approach almost completely ignores the complexity and interconnectedness of the human psyche. CBT is great for treating phobias, substance abuse, anger outbursts.­.. its great for treating behavior, but it does not address the underlying issues that motivated the behavior in the first place. And you're very correct in saying that it contributes to a culture of rigid behavioral "standards" that in the end are not particularly realistic or helpful.

[kellysmalltowngirl]

I agree. The rise of the HMO/PPO culture and CBT are one of the reasons I never finished my PhD in counseling psychology 15 years ago. I saw the writing on the wall and wanted no parts of it.

[Bryant Welch - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, I agree with you. One thing that has not been given much attention in the popular media is how the word "science" has been hijacked by a small number of academic researchers who instead of seeing science as an investigation of the unknown, have limited it to a study of those things that fit conveniently into the academics research paradigm, regardless of the importance of the issue and regardless of the important subjects that are excluded. Cognitive therapy as one such area of "scientific research" is therefore characterized as an evidence based treatment. Fortunately research in Europe is beginning to show the folly of all this by devoting resources to the more arduous and less academically rewarding task of studying longer term treatments with people who suffer from deeper problems. The research supports exactly what you are saying. Thank you for pointing it out. BW

[tyrdofwaitin]

Thank you Brian Welch for this comprehensive expose. I have printed it out because this is a keeper which I plan to distribute to my collegues.

I have been a member of the APA since 1990 and I expect this will be my final year as a member. I've been appalled by the revelations of APA complicity with the Bush/Chene­y/Rumsfiel­d definitions of interrogation; your revelations are the lastest and most searing. It sickens me that the APA leadership swallowed whole this "new order" and frankly frightens me that the moral compass of psychology is so fragile.

And, I'm left to wonder what Americans think of psychologists now. I am left with a well of sadness and shame. I am left thinking how psychologists of good will need to hold those responsible for collusion in human cruelty, publically accountabe ----and reclaim the APA.

[Bryant Welch - Huffpost Blogger]

I could not agree with you more. There is an enormous difference between the psychologists I have met in my travels around the country who are actively involved in treating patients and those one encounters in the APA governance. This, of course, has left the profession vulnerable to the flawed leadership it has received over the last twenty years.

[morgan1]

Excellent article. I believe this is how the road to ruin begins--Those intellectuals no longer grounded in reality, isolated into their own mindset having good intentions perverted into evil by the govt. machine and military agenda. I am certain this is how the Nazi's evolved from the will of the people to gas chambers:B­enevolence into genocide.

[realpolitic]

I guess even psychologists want approval. The Bush administration gave them a good deal of approval as long as they went along with the plan of torture. It later abandoned them, as it abandoned everyone else it could blame its policy blunders on.

[Marcospinelli]

"Jane Mayer is pessimistic that this nation has the 'political appetite' to bring the perpetrators of torture to the bar of justice in this country."

http://www.americantorture.com/labels/Ethics.html

Jane Mayer has a nasty habit of granting anonymity to sources who offer nothing but opinion, wrapped in propanganda, but this comment disturbs me because it enters the readers' minds where it sets up shop.

Who is she referring to when she doubts there is political will in "this nation"?

The only people who I hear lack this will are the perpetrators and collaborators in Washington, i.e., politicians.

Daniel Inouye has flown under the radar for decades, and whenever his name shows up in a current event, liberals swoon over him, apparently ig.no.rant of his participation in some of the greatest cover-ups (Iran-Contra) and double-dealing done to Democrats (Gang of 14, Bush's conservative judges) in the last 30 years.