America's Psychologists Finally Call For An End To Involvement In Torture

The American Psychological Association should have taken a stand against torture years ago, when evidence first emerged that the Bush administration was condoning and even encouraging torture.

The organization finally took that stand today, August 16th, 2008, and we should applaud them for it, despite the delay.

Saying it was "deeply concerned about the alleged involvement of a psychologist in an abusive interrogation of a Guantanamo detainee," the APA declared that "no psychologist - APA member or not - should be directly or indirectly involved in any form of detention or interrogation that could lead to psychological or physical harm to a detainee."

The APA, the world's largest association of psychologists and related researchers and clinicians, listed 19 interrogation techniques that it described as torture, including waterboarding, hooding, forced nudity and the use of stress positions in interrogations.

The APA has taken heat for its refusal to act earlier. (See Deborah Korry's and Art Levine's informative 2007 posts, and Levine's article in the Jan./Feb. issue of Washington Monthly.) It lagged far behind even the conservative American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, who earlier barred medical doctors from participating in torture.

In its statement, the APA also calls on the Department of Defense and Congress to continue investigations of the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

The statement follows a 2006 resolution by the APA's Council of Representatives, a legalistic 12 "Whereas" clauses, and concluding with another dozen paragraphs beginning with "Be it resolved..." It took two years for the APA to distill that into the brief, three-paragraph condemnation of torture that it issued today.

The statement is not likely to change much. But it does remove one more fig leaf of cover from the Bush administration's endorsement of torture.

Comments

[divtune]

I applaud the APA for this stance, but I think they should go further and state that torture is ineffective for extracting information, and harmful to the nation's security.

Psychologically, the reason people torture others is pure, unthinking anger and revenge. However, there is a Chinese proverb that states, "Before you seek revenge, you should first dig two graves."

Torturing prisoners gives enormous propaganda opportunities to our enemies. Those pictures from Abu Ghraib helped recruit thousands of new insurgents, undoubtedly leading to more American deaths and injuries, not less.

Allowing the torture of those suspected of terrorism inevitably leads to the torture of innocent people. Tortured or intimidated prisoners say whatever the torturer wants them to say, simply to stop the torture. Hell, people will confess to being witches when tortured!

Although John McCain has come out strongly against torture in the past, last February, he voted against a bill that would ban waterboarding and other forms of torture by the CIA, citing national security concerns. Psychologists would call this "rationalization." I fear that if McCain is elected, we will be digging lots of new graves.

Barack Obama voted for this "Intelligence Authorization Bill" which passed both houses of congress, but was vetoed by President Bush. Thus, only Obama can be trusted to ban torture as president. McCain can be expected to continue torturing prisoners (anger and revenge) and continue to harm the security of the country in the process.

[egal]

Wow, that's...completely useless now. Where were the APA when the military told the president torture was illegal and were ignored? Not that they could have done much, but at least there would be no uncertainty about the existence of non-military confirmation that torture's pointless.

[cylindar]

Please note that they do not address the fact that Psychologists are designing programs of torture. It is important for this community to ban any and all collaboration in this regard. People entering these professions need to advise themselves early on in regard to how they are going to come down on these issues. It is not acceptable for anyone to design, implement or participate either directly or indirectly in such programs. We do not need any more Dr. Mengele's in our midst.

[tompoe]

mmgpsych makes a good point. No mention, though, that those who participated in torture sessions are accountable for their actions. The APA has legal exposure for failing to clearly state their position years ago. For those who participated as members of the APA better hope their criminal prosecutions don't preclude their opportunities to sue the association from their jail cells.

[knighthowl]

While I agree that the action is long over due, you must not be a lawyer. There is no legal liability on the part of the APA for whatever actions its members may have taken. None.

[mmgpsych]

As a psychologist myself, it has always been my contention that any psychologist assisting the Bush administration in anything even bordering on torture should be drummed out of the corps. Such action is an obvious violation of the first principle of the APA Ethics Code, which is:

"Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm."

It's *more* than about time the APA took a stand.

[kellysmalltowngirl]

Exactly.

[itmaybetoolate]

I strongly agree!! Participation in/support of torture is an egregious violation of the APA Ethics Code. They should be stripped of their licenses and criminal charges should be explored.