Originally published on the CGS blog on August 15, 2007.
An interesting story published today on Salon.com reports on the position of psychologists in the U.S. vis a vis coercive interrogation strategies in the war on terror. Published in the run up to the American Psychological Association (APA) annual convention in San Francisco this weekend, this is an interesting piece, especially in terms of the complicity of psychologists in CIA interrogations and Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) training, as documented in American Torture by Mike Otterman.
Interestingly, and encouragingly, the APA has become increasingly strict on what it considers ethically acceptable in terms of the application of enhanced interrogation (torture) practices over the last few years. This includes the closure of certain loopholes in the definitions of what is and is not acceptable. For example, this passage is telling:
“The simmering debate over interrogations inside the APA has been increasingly heating to a boil for several years. In 2005, a group of 10 psychologists drafted new APA ethics guidelines that condemned torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — but that also noted that psychologists helping interrogators were performing a “valuable and ethical role to assist in protecting our nation, other nations, and innocent civilians from harm.” (Salon reported last summer that six of the 10 psychologists who drafted that policy had close ties to the military, including the chief of the Army Special Operations Command’s Psychological Directorate, Col. Morgan Banks.)
Then last summer, the APA’s council passed a resolution reaffirming a “condemnation of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment wherever it occurs.”
But the positions taken by the APA so far — the ethics principles drafted by those 10 psychologists and the resolution last summer — contain legal vagaries of the flavor repeatedly exploited by the Bush administration to pursue coercive interrogations in one theater or another. The concern among psychologists is that their profession is being dragged along for the ride. And that is what is driving the resolutions the psychologists are wrestling with now, to specifically outlaw individual interrogation techniques or even ban psychologists from interrogations altogether.”
This passage emphasizes the divided camp within the APA – those who would seek to introduce a moratorium as a rebuttal of current policy, and those who believe that psychologists are needed during interrogations for the express reason of ensuring that detainees are treated humanely. It seems that this is a predictable divide that will probably endure. The problem is, however, that the CIA may (and the evidence suggests it already has) turn to psychologists who are not members of the APA. Hopefully though, a condemnation of torture from the APA should send a stern message to CIA employed psychologists at this critical stage. Read the full story here .
