PSYCHOLOGISTS: Withhold your APA dues...

[RobertDevereaux]

There are already more than 1400 clinical psychologists who are going to withhold their annual dues (something like $400) from the American Psychological Association.

If you are an APA member, and you want your voice heard against APA support of US torture, go here:

http://www.withholdapadues.com/

and do likewise! (PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!)

An excerpt from this website:

As APA members we are profoundly disturbed by our organization’s policy allowing
psychologists to participate in U.S. military interrogations at Guantanamo and other
military and C.I.A. facilities where suspected terrorists are detained without due process.
Last year the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association
declared unequivocally that there is no legitimate role for psychiatrists or physicians
in such interrogations; they insisted that participation violates basic international human
rights and the ethical imperative to do no harm.


Noting the APA’s cooperation with the US government, the American Anthropological
Association voted unanimously to condemn the use of anthropological knowledge as an
element of physical or psychological torture. The APA’s position is condemned by human
rights groups, by Britain’s medical journal The Lancet, by journalists covering the story; and
by many of its own members, but the elected and appointed leaders of the APA have not
been moved to revise their position.


* The current APA Ethics Code (Ethical Standards Section 1.02) continues to allow
psychologists to violate its principles, including that of “do no harm,” in order to
“adhere to the requirements of the law.”


* The APA 2006 Resolution Against Torture opposes use of torture, yet allows
psychologists to continue to consult on interrogation strategies at Guantanamo, even
though the U.S. government deprives detainees of due process and operates the
prison in open violation of international law.


* Officers of the APA contend that the presence of psychologists at Guantanamo
promotes the practice of “ethical interrogations,” as if interrogations conducted in the
context of forced, indefinite and extralegal detentions can be ethical.


* APA is lending credibility to unacceptable detention and interrogation practices,
thereby undermining the integrity of American psychologists throughout the world.


We will withhold our dues until the APA reaffirms unequivocal adherence to our first principle:
do no harm, and insures that its Code of Ethics conforms with human rights standards
set by international law and the Geneva Conventions. We invite you to join us in pledging
to withhold dues until it does so.

[Crayson]

1. Psychologist have an ethics code like doctors?

I didn't even know psychologists were "doctors" and they had an ethical code.
Interesting...

I just always mistrusted the bunch, guess there are some "good guys" in their ranks after all.
^_^

[RobertDevereaux]

2. One of the good guys...

Yep, my wife for one!

They're not medical doctors, but they are PhD doctors.

[aikoaiko]

3. edited titled: I'm fine with the APA stance -- please read what was actually voted on.

I'm an APA member, and I'm fine with their stance of prohibiting APA members from being involved with torture and they name the specific acts that constitute torture. I'm fine with psychologists being involved with interrogations. Psychologists should be involved with effective, humane interrogations.

Tell me what is wrong with what was actually approved by the APA.

Here is the press release.

American Psychological Association calls on U.S. government to prohibit the use of unethical interrogation techniques

Association labels specific techniques as torture; bans such acts as water boarding, use of dogs to intimidate, and sexual humiliation

SAN FRANCISCO—The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has approved a resolution prohibiting specific techniques sometimes used in interrogations and calling on the U.S. government to ban their use.

The resolution, passed at the APA's annual convention in San Francisco, unequivocally condemns and strictly prohibits psychologists from direct or indirect participation in a list of 19 unethical interrogation techniques including: mock execution; water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation; sexual humiliation; rape; cultural or religious humiliation; exploitation of phobias or psychopathology; induced hypothermia; and the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances for the purpose of eliciting information. In addition, the following acts were banned for the purpose of eliciting information in an interrogations process: hooding; forced nakedness; stress positions; the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate; physical assault including slapping or shaking; exposure to extreme heat or cold; threats of harm or death; and isolation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm; or the threatened use of any of the above techniques to the individual or to members of the individual's family.

Yesterday's vote further articulates that the identified interrogation techniques are strictly out-of-bounds for psychologists, according to Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, Director of the APA Ethics Office. “We have had a long-standing position that torture and other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment are unethical. The strength of this new resolution is that it adds specificity to that prohibition,” Behnke said.

The new resolution calls upon the United States Government, including the Congress, Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency, to prohibit the use of the identified techniques. The resolution additionally noted the likelihood that torture and other forms of cruel treatment lead to unreliable and/or inaccurate information. For that reason, it calls upon U.S. legal systems to reject testimony that results from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

This latest resolution builds on a 2006 Council of Representatives resolution reasserting the organization's absolute opposition to all forms of torture and abuse, regardless of circumstance and linking the Association's position to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

APA policy condemns and absolutely prohibits psychologists from planning, designing, assisting in or participating in any activities including interrogations which involve the use of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Here is the text of the resolution.

Resolution Adopted by APA on
August 19, 2007

Substitute Motion 3

Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as “Enemy Combatants”i

WHEREAS the mission of the American Psychological Association is to advance psychology as a science and profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare through the establishment and maintenance of the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct of the members of the Association;

WHEREAS the American Psychological Association is an accredited non-governmental organization at the United Nations and so is committed to promote and protect human rights in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

WHEREAS the American Psychological Association passed the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a comprehensive and foundational position applicable to all individuals, in all settings and in all contexts without exception;

WHEREAS in 2006, the American Psychological Association defined torture in accordance with Article l of the United Nations Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

he term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions ;

WHEREAS in 2006, the American Psychological Association defined the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" to mean treatment or punishment by a psychologist that, in accordance with the McCain Amendment, is of a kind that would be "prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984." Specifically, United States Reservation I.1 of the Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture stating, "the term 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."ii

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association reaffirms unequivocally the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in its entirety in both substance and content (see Appendix A);

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association affirms that there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification for torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the invocation of laws, regulations, or orders;

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association unequivocally condemns torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, under any and all conditions, including detention and interrogations of both lawful and unlawful enemy combatants as defined by the US Military Commissions Act of 2006;

BE IT RESOLVED that the unequivocal condemnation includes an absolute prohibition against psychologists’ knowingly planning, designing, and assisting in the use of torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention. This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information; as well as the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process: hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death; and isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm; or the threatened use of any of the above techniques to the individual or to members of the individual’s family;

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association calls on the United States government—including Congress, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency—to prohibit the use of these methods in all interrogations and that the American Psychological Association shall inform relevant parties with the United States government that psychologists are prohibited from participating in such methods ;

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association, in recognizing that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment can result not only from the behavior of individuals, but also from the conditions of confinement, expresses grave concern over settings in which detainees are deprived of adequate protection of their human rights, affirms the prerogative of psychologists to refuse to work in such settings, and will explore ways to support psychologists who refuse to work in such settings or who refuse to obey orders that constitute torture;

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association asserts that any APA member with knowledge that a psychologist, whether an APA member or non-member, has engaged in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the specific behaviors listed above, has an ethical responsibility to abide by Ethical Standard 1.05, Reporting Ethical Violations, in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002) and directs the Ethics Committee to take appropriate action based upon such information, and encourages psychologists who are not APA members also to adhere to Ethical Standard 1.05;

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association commends those psychologists who have taken clear and unequivocal stands against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, especially in the line of duty, and including stands against the specific behaviors (in lines 81 through 100) or conditions listed above; and that the American Psychological Association affirms the prerogative of psychologists under the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002) to disobey law, regulations or orders when they conflict with ethics ;

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association asserts that all psychologists with information relevant to the use of any method of interrogation constituting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment have an ethical responsibility to inform their superiors of such knowledge, to inform the relevant office of inspector generals when appropriate, and to cooperate fully with all oversight activities, including hearings by the United States Congress and all branches of the United States government, to examine the perpetration of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment against individuals in United States custody, for the purpose of ensuring that no individual in the custody of the United States is subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;

BE IT RESOLVED that the APA Ethics Committee shall proceed forthwith in writing a casebook and commentary that shall set forth guidelines for psychologists that are consistent with international human rights instruments, as well as guidelines developed for health professionals, including but not limited to: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; The United Nations Principles of Medical Ethics Relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and The World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo: Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment;

BE IT RESOLVED that the American Psychological Association, in order to protect against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and in order to mitigate against the likelihood that unreliable and/or inaccurate information is entered into legal proceedings, calls upon United States legal systems to reject testimony that results from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

_______________________

i Defined as both unlawful enemy combatants and lawful enemy combatants as set forth in the U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Chapter 47A; Subchapter I: § 948a. Definitions)

‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(

A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means—
‘‘(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
‘‘(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
‘‘(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘cobelligerent’, with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

‘‘(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—

‘‘(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;


‘‘(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
‘‘(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.



ii Article V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VIII.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And here is a link the code of ethics.
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html


edited my title: no need for me to get huffy.

[donsu]

4. lay down with torturers get up with a stain

nt

[EFerrari]

6. I recently learned that one of the task of those "interrogators"

was to destroy the detainees' relationship with their attorneys -- and it's working.

"Did you know that lawyer is a Jew? Not only a Jew but a Zionist? Not only a Zionist but a homosexual?"

Does the APA really want to be associated with this activity?

[aikoaiko]

7. interrogations are messy things.

In your example, if true, someone uses detainees' lame prejudices against themselves in order to manipulate them. Is that nice -- no. Is it torture -- no.

If psychologists choose to help the military, intelligence effort to collect information without torture, I support them and the APA should too.

[EFerrari]

8. It's a human rights violation and it's against international law.

The Pentagon has latched on to the APA because ALL the other major professional organizations have repudiated this brutality.

[aikoaiko]

14. The APA repudiated psychologists involvement in torture.

I'm not sure what brutality you're talking about. Are you calling your example of using prejudices against someone brutality and against international law?

[EFerrari]

15. The APA measure left loopholes that can be exploited. One of them is

using the lower American standard of what constitutes "torture" instead of the higher standard used in international law.

[PATRICK]

16. To sum up

The loopholes and sense of accomodation with state interrogation that includes torture, the allowing of doctors to particpate as part of the "non-torture" element of the abusise policy, to cross several lines in subverting legal rights no matter how distant from physical or psychological direct torture.

I imagine for the outsider the document has to be clearly examined in its implications. Those withholding their dues in such numbers are likely not stupid or seeing things that aren't there. I hope these people also consider the whole aspect of accomodation by which a great deal of the nation's professional and leadership structure has become easily compormised and blind to their participiation in really black and white abuses of power. In other words turn the talents on themselves and their connection to dangerous political environments and government abues. Torture is dramatic but is only the clearest(or SHOULD be) example of the horror of collaboration disguised as respectabilty.

[EFerrari]

21. There is an additional wrinkle here. There is at least one person

in the APA leadership with ties to a firm that contracts out "interrogators". More, many internships for doctoral candidates as well as jobs are through the Pentagon or the VA.

There is a conflict of interest here and that is one of the elephants in the room.

[PATRICK]

24. Ahhh

Mephistopheles. The grease that keeps the wheels moving. How could I even forget to ask about the money angle.

Then they need elephant guns not just withholding a few dollars in dues. Funny how mney escapes the ethics concerns and causes so many surprising problems even among the astute healers of the psyche. Is it just the American APA that has a blind spot regarding investment and moral connections to their civil society? Computer enngineers finally came around about e-voting abuses. The corrupt sellouts always precede the belated awareness.

[EFerrari]

26. I don't know the answer to that question but wonder if there is

any segment of our society that hasn't been corrupted.

[JuniperLea]

42. That's the point...

As far as I'm concerned, when people, or an organization, or a government for that matter, takes the time to list out all the individual names for anything, chances are they are leaving something out.

Why not just say torture? And identify torture as anything that causes physical or mental pain or anguish?

Oh... this isn't "water-boarding"! We play Beethoven, wear lederhosen, and hold his head under for exactly 45 seconds. That's not "water-boarding". Sheesh! It's "water-hoven-hosen"!

[EFerrari]

43. Exactly. You nailed it. n/t

[EFerrari]

5. The problem is the presence of psychologists at interrogations

give them an aura of respectability.

Here is a link to the degment Amy Goodman did on Monday. She taped part of the townhall held after the convention -- but only after the Board tried to kick her out. She had to go to the mike and announce she was being made to leave and the members shamed the powers that be into letting her stay and tape.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/20/1628253

[aikoaiko]

12. whats wrong with interrogations?

You wrote:
The problem is the presence of psychologists at interrogations give them an aura of respectability.

What exactly is wrong with interrogations?

I understand being against Bush, against the war, against the CIA policies, etc, but thats a separate issue from being involved with military interrogations.

ps. I'm listening the Goodman's report now. Nothing that makes me change my mind so far.

[EFerrari]

13. It's not interrogations per se but the manner of interrogations

that this administration has decided to conduct. These guys have no respect for the Geneva Conventions, human rights, international law, hell -- US law, for that matter. And despite the fact that these "enhanced" interrogations do not produce reliable intelligence, they are hell bent on continuing them.

The APA is providing a cover for them and a possible legal defense in a future war crimes trial.

[aikoaiko]

33. I agree its the manner that important and the resolution is pretty clear about specific torture

I just can't see how anyone can say that this resolution shows the APA supporting torture.

Quoted from the resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention. This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information; as well as the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process: hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death; and isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm; or the threatened use of any of the above techniques to the individual or to members of the individual’s family;

[EFerrari]

35. The APA leadership (NOT the membership) has made itself

into a pretzel trying to look like it is taking a principled stand without taking one.

Did you watch Amy's tape of that townhall? Those members were furious. :shrug:

[aikoaiko]

38. Yes, I did. Its hard to tell -- motivated disgruntled minority faction is more likely to attend.

The APA is huge. Last I heard over 60K.

I get the sense that this is about the war in Iraq and Bush not about whether or not psychologists should be involved with military/cia interrogations. If it is the former, then its inappropriate to tell fellow psychologists who they can work for. If this were a war with wide support and we loved our president, would there be the same call to not be involved with interrogations without torture -- I don't think so.

The APA repudiated involvement with torture and yes did leave some loopholes open but I'd rather have psychologists involved than not in nontorture interrogations.

edited to add: We don't have to continue. I'm an APA member and I'm fine with the resolution as passed.

[EFerrari]

39. The APA is the last professional organization NOT

to declare a moratorium on attending "interrogations". That says a lot. Even the Anthro-Musicalogist Assoc. has repudiated the use of music in "interrogations". :shrug:

So, no, it's far from a disgruntled minority. The vast majority of medical and mental health professionals have come out strongly against aiding and abetting this brutal administration in its gratuitous abuse of detainees.

And there is no benefit to having psychologists standing around during these sessions and providing a fig leaf for clearly unlawful actions.

It's okay with me if we disagree, aikoaiko.

[iverglas]

47. why is that?

I'd rather have psychologists involved than not in nontorture interrogations.

Who is the psychologist's client in that situation? What, exactly, is the psychologist's role? To whom is the psychologist responsible for the professional services provided? And exactly what are those services?

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
(my emphases)

3.07 Third-Party Requests for Services
When psychologists agree to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third party, psychologists attempt to clarify at the outset of the service the nature of the relationship with all individuals or organizations involved. This clarification includes the role of the psychologist (e.g., therapist, consultant, diagnostician, or expert witness), an identification of who is the client, the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained, and the fact that there may be limits to confidentiality. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships, and 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality.)

3.05 Multiple Relationships
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.

A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.

Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.

(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.

(c) When psychologists are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of confidentiality and thereafter as changes occur. (See also Standards 3.04, Avoiding Harm, and 3.07, Third-Party Requests for Services.)

3.06 Conflict of Interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.

What is the psychologist's relationship with the person being interrogated? What is the psychologist's professional responsibility to that person? What is the psychologist's relationship with the US government agents conducting the interrogation? What is the psychologist's professional responsibility to the US government? Is there any conflict? What is the person being interrogated told about the psychologist's roles and responsibilities?


We don't have to continue. I'm an APA member and I'm fine with the resolution as passed.

What is that supposed to mean?

The profession of psychology is a self-governing profession, which means that it is given the authority, by the public to which that authority belongs, to determine who is entitled to practise the profession and on what terms, in the public interest.

The APA is not the governing body of the profession, certainly; it is the voluntary organization that psychologists join to promote both their own interests and their clients' and the public's interests (each of which, obviously, sometimes conflict with another).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_and_licensing_of_clinical_psychologists
http://www.apa.org/international/faq-us.html

In the United States, regulations about the practice of psychology are determined by each state. There is no federal regulation.

You must be licensed to practice psychology according to the laws and regulations in effect in each state where you provide services. These laws are regulated by state boards of psychology. Requirements for licensure are not standardized across states, but generally, candidates are assessed on their education, supervised training, and examination performance.

Codes of ethics developed by voluntary professional associations are commonly used as the basis for the rules governing discipline within the members of a licensed profession in specific jurisdictions, and voluntary professional associations such as the APA commonly promote their ethics codes for that purpose:

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#intro

The Ethics Code is intended to provide guidance for psychologists and standards of professional conduct that can be applied by the APA and by other bodies that choose to adopt them.

The pronouncements of bodies like the APA on matters of professional ethics are therefore of very legitimate and serious concern to the public, and not just to its members.

Psychology has long been the poor cousin of the professions, and has only fairly recently gained status as a genuine profession entitled to self-regulate, i.e., for one thing, decide who is and is not entitled to use the designation "psychologist". The ethical standards promoted and applied and enforced by a profession are a crucial factor in the public's decision as to whether to permit it to self-regulate or not.

[aikoaiko]

49. You ask good questions.

In general, the psychologist would be working for and services would primarily be for the military/cia.

Their roles could be many, but I would assume, for this discussion, they would be assisting in extracting accurate information within the bounds of law and professional ethics. I know that last part is being contested, but its what psychologists get to work with. They still have an ethical and legal responsibility to do no harm to the prisoner regardless of who they work for.


Of course the public can have their say about the behavior of psychologists or APA members. When I said "We don't have to continue" I was allowing the discussion with a specific DU person to end so that we just repeat our positions.

[iverglas]

50. I think ...

Their roles could be many, but I would assume, for this discussion, they would be assisting in extracting accurate information within the bounds of law and professional ethics.

... you really ought to assume less, and know more.

If you haven't even determined the answers to those questions -- the role of the psychologist in the situation, the party or parties with whom the psychologist has a professional relationship in the situation, the professional responsibilities of the psychologist within that relationship or those relationships -- I fail to see why you would even have an opinion on this matter, let alone why anyone else would give it serious consideration.

Is it the role of a psychologist to "extract information" for a third party?

http://www.apa.org/divisions/div12/aboutcp.html

WHAT IS CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY?

The field of Clinical Psychology integrates science, theory, and practice to understand, predict, and alleviate maladjustment, disability, and discomfort as well as to promote human adaptation, adjustment, and personal development. Clinical Psychology focuses on the intellectual, emotional, biological, psychological, social, and behavioral aspects of human functioning across the life span, in varying cultures, and at all socioeconomic levels.

WHAT DO CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS DO?

The Clinical Psychologist is educated and trained to generate and integrate scientific and professional knowledge and skills so as to further psychological science, the professional practice of psychology, and human welfare. Clinical Psychologists are involved in research, teaching and supervision, program development and evaluation, consultation, public policy, professional practice, and other activities that promote psychological health in individuals, families, groups, and organizations. Their work can range from prevention and early intervention of minor problems of adjustment to dealing with the adjustment and maladjustment of individuals whose disturbance requires then to be institutionalized.

I'm not seeing "extract information" there. Just as I wouldn't expect to see "experiment without consent" in whatever code of ethics governed physicians in Nazi Germany.

The fact that a psychologist does something does not mean that s/he is doing it in his/her capacity as psychologist, or that it is appropriate for a psychologist to do in that capacity.



The statement of yours that I was querying was:

I'm an APA member and I'm fine with the resolution as passed.

My query remains, given that you have now indicated that you don't even know what the role and responsibilities of the psychologist in the situation are defined as being, let alone how or whether that role is consistent with the ethical rules adopted by the APA for the provision of professional services by its members or how those responsibilities are fulfilled and compliance with them monitored, for example.

[aikoaiko]

52. You write as if you think all psychologists are clinical psychologists

There are forensic and military psychologists whose skills might be applicable.

I don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape about their being different roles that a psychologist might fulfill in interogations. For example, a psychologist might be the person asking the questions, consult on environmental stimuli in the interrogation room, debrief the interrogators, consulting with language usage, detecting deception in facial cues, working to improve morale of detention camp employees, etc. A psychologist, depending on training, could help with any of these roles.

You do know that there are other types of psychologists besides clinical psychologists, don't you?

[iverglas]

53. well, what do you know about that?

There are forensic and military psychologists whose skills might be applicable.

Okey dokey. Are the psychologists in question forensic or military psychologists?

I'd doubt it myself, but you never know.

If you don't know, why do you have an opinion about what the psychologists in question are doing?

How could you possibly have an opinion about whether they are acting consistently with their professional ethics if you don't know what their roles and responsibilities in the situation are?

You claim to be a psychologist. You have stated an opinion about an issue of professional ethics in the psychology profession.

Should we not be able to expect that you will be stating an informed opinion?

Is it ethical for a psychologist (or a student en route to becoming a psychologist, or whatever kind of member of the APA you are) to state an opinion about another psychologist's compliance or non-compliance with a code of ethics, without even knowing what professional role the psychologist is performing, what his/her professional relationship with the parties in the situation is, and what his/her professional responsibilities to them are?

Would you find it inappropriate for a professional psychologist to allege an ethical violation if s/he did not know all of those things? Why would it be acceptable to allege absence of an ethical violation without knowing them? Does a member of the APA not have a duty both to the public and to the profession to inform him/herself about these things before expressing an opinion on other members' compliance or non-compliance with professional ethics?

I would truly think it is unethical, professionally, to do either one.

[aikoaiko]

54. I don't know what you imagine these psychologists are by training....

What things have you imagined they are .... only clinicians? Strange road for you to go down.

The way I understand the issue of this thread is that psychologists are assisting government agents or organizations with interrogations at detention centers. As long as their actions are not illegal or prohibited by APA ethics (e.g., involving torture), then I have no problem calling their roles ethical no matter what they do (even if I disagree with them). Its doesn't matter what they do. The psychologist could be the cook for all it matters in deciding whether their roles are ethical.

[EFerrari]

55. In that case, you are willfully overlooking their role in

collaborating with torture. Let alone, their role in engineering the tactics of torture used on these people because we now know that SERE methods were reverse engineered BY PSYCHOLOGISTS to be used on detainees.

And that would be, detainees held without due process. Maybe that's YOUR idea of ethical behavior.

[bobthedrummer]

17. There is also the history of the research and development of theorists

that were, in fact, connected to black budget funded operations conducted at many institutions.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison (as but one example) had two bacteriologists (Edwin Fred and Ira Baldwin) that operationalized US biological weapons programs, Fort Detrick was converted to a biological weapons center by Ira Baldwin after personal appeals by George Merck.

Frank Olson was a student of Ira Baldwin's and Baldwin convinced Olson to join with him in the US biological "research" pioneered at Fort Detrick.

Frank Olson, Louis Jolyon West and other prominent theorists and researchers from related fields cited often in the open source literature of black budget funded projects (Harry Harlow, Abraham Maslow) were all at UW-Madison during various times-just like Edwin Fred and Ira Baldwin.

Here's a link to a post (from a very informative parent thread) that discusses a little bit about these black budget projects in Wisconsin.

"Wisconsin and some black operations" (7-28-2007)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x21683#21699

When the funding for research comes from corrupted sources it's not surprising to see ethical violations galore, all for grants and donations accepted from questionable individuals and groups.

A further example of this in Wisconsin would be Wallace J. Hilliard. Here's a link from the same thread about this very wealthy and very elusive character (the edit time had expired for this linked post-in it I incorrectly named Hilliard's former Green Bay business "American Medical Services/AMS", it 's correct name is American Medical Security/AMS).

Wally Hilliard has been cited in open sources about extraordinary rendition flights, drug networks and he was part-owner and operator of Huffman Aviation, the Naples, Florida flight school attended by at least 2 of the 9/11 "terrorists" (including "leader" Muhammad Atta).

"University of Wisconsin-Madison alumnus Wallace J. Hilliard, his associates & family merit a post" (8-18-2007)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=186x21683#21906

[EFerrari]

22. Very important point. n/t

[Maraya1969]

36. This link explains their position further

http://www.withholdapadues.com/anstofaq.html

[EFerrari]

46. Thank you.

:kick:

[iverglas]

45. very interesting

Now, let's zero in with a little more focus. I'm going to add emphasis to the passages quoted to help focus.

Let's start with that bit about the US Constitution.

From the resolution:

WHEREAS in 2006, the American Psychological Association defined the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" to mean treatment or punishment by a psychologist that, in accordance with the McCain Amendment, is of a kind that would be "prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984." Specifically, United States Reservation I.1 of the Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture stating, "the term 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."

From the US Constitution:

Article V.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VIII.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Very little there about the matter. And nothing at all about "treatment", just "punishment". It's actually "treatment" that is the issue here.

The McCain Amendment itself just muddies the waters, it seems to me:

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1567&issue_id=70

No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

... Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

We seem to be just going in a great big circle. US documents refer to "treatment or punishment", and then define the term by referring to constitutional provisions relating only to punishment -- where the term is not defined anyway.

Let's look at the US reservations to the Convention:

http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord1998/documentation/reservations/cat.htm

I. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:

(1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

... II. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

The definition of torture in the Convention is actually as follows:

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Not the same things. And the APA has expressly adopted the US reservation. Why?

This is Article 16 of the Convention:

http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/39.shtml

Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.

Maybe it's just me not getting something here.

But where is the US government -- and the APA, following in its footsteps -- committing themselves to not participating in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as the rest of the world understands that expression? And why has the APA adopted the US reservation regarding the meaning of torture?


In the case of the APA, on the first question, that would appear to be here (the emphasis in this case will be explained below):

BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention. This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information; as well as the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process: hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death; and isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm; or the threatened use of any of the above techniques to the individual or to members of the individual’s family;

And here's a commentary on that boldfaced bit:

http://www.psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/

Lets take a look at the wording of this entire section, which forbids psychologist participation in:

“the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process: hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death; and isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm”

The APA here is protecting the ability of psychologists to participate in “forced nudity,” “physical assault,” use of temperature extremes, etc., as long as these are used outside of interrogations. Thus, the Resolution seems to affirm that psychologists can participate in abuse, as long as they aren’t using it to get information. This is perhaps one of the most warped ethical statements I have ever seen.

The APA ethics code states as its Principle A that “Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm.” The Convention decisively abandoned this Principle without any discussion.

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/news-2007-08-19.html

The APA expressed "grave concern" about the situations where detainees are deprived of their human rights, but the resolution stops short of prohibiting psychologists from participating in activities other than clinical treatment in settings where human rights violations are taking place. PHR urged the APA to take this step as soon as possible.

"It is an illusion to believe that psychologists can act ethically in situations, particularly in an interrogation support capacity, where such severe violations of human rights are taking place," said Rubenstein <President of Physicians for Human Rights>. "At Guantanamo and elsewhere, detainees deprived of due process and subject to indefinite detention experience cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a consequence of the terms of their detention."

The APA seems to be the odd one out in this situation. I'm rather taken aback, since my own professional and personal opinion of the profession has always been pretty high.

[Supersedeas]

9. a little activism for ya

[EFerrari]

10. Another site that might be of interest to you, Robert

(must say, I'm surprised to see you posting, lol)

www.ethicalapa. org

[RobertDevereaux]

20. The corrected link is...

http://www.ethicalapa.com/

and thanks for the pointer!

[EFerrari]

30. Sometimes I post links that way to save DU bandwidth

but I don't really know if it does or not. lol

[spanone]

11. America has lost it's soul

[marions ghost]

18. What's the deal?

Doesn't the military have their own psychologists?

If 1400 members of the APA are finding this a concern, then it seems there must be something unethical going on...

This could be an effective protest. Thanks for posting. Update us on the progress if you can.

[bobthedrummer]

19. Sources of funding from black budget is one problem-see post 17 n/t

[marions ghost]

28. thanks bobtd

I will read your links.

[EFerrari]

23. There are military psychologists in the APA. Remember,

after psychiatrists turned their back on torture, the Pentagram announced that it preferred to use psychologists. . .

And you bet there's a problem here. There was a working group put together to look into abusive interrogation and the APA, in coordination with the Pentagon, stacked the 10 person panel with SIX psychologists who had direct ties to abusive interrogations -- and didn't reveal that.

Google PENS APA report. The whole story is sort of hair raising. Both APA and the military put minders in the room. No one was allowed to take notes or discuss the proceedings. The report was not SIGNED by the members.

[marions ghost]

25. thank you

I can see this is worth getting some background on.

[EFerrari]

27. Amy has done at least three great segments on this.

It might be worth it to go to her site first. :hi:

[marions ghost]

29. thanks very much for the tip on that

Amy rocks. So do you. I'm going to try to get up to speed on this subject.

:thumbsup:

[RobertDevereaux]

31. Amy's latest...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070821_psychologists_in_denial_about_torture/

There are others by her on this website.

No time now to grab 'em for ya!

[marions ghost]

34. Thanks for this--"Psychologists in Denial about Torture"

..."we must sever the connection between healers and tormentors once and for all...." (Amy Goodman)

whew, blistering

yes I can see I need to read up. Thanks again.

[bobthedrummer]

61. .

[EFerrari]

32. I am addicted to Amy. If she ever retires, I'm going to have to

go into rehab. :)

[pingzing58]

37. Any psychologist complicit with U.S. torture and illegal interrogation methods should have their

membership in the APA revoked and permanently barred and flagged from membership in other professional organizations. Their names should be submitted to the Hague for investigation of "crimes against humanity" by the APA.

[EFerrari]

40. The problem is, the APA leadership is in bed with BushCo.

They are not an ethical group and they are by extension tainting their entire membership.

The protest is coming from the membership, not the Board of Directors.

[pingzing58]

41. Yes, starting with the leadership.

[EFerrari]

44. Kick

[EFerrari]

48. kick

[bobthedrummer]

51. From the psychoanalytic school that used to profile communist and other leaders for CIA-kick+

"Dangers of a Cornered George Bush" from VIPS and Dr.Justin Frank (7-27-2007)
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072707a.html

[EFerrari]

56. Kick. Please withhold your dues from the APA that I'm joining

so I can withhold my dues.

:rofl:

[bobthedrummer]

60. Abstracted succinctism/succinct abstracted paradoxical kick

:)

[EFerrari]

57. KiCk

[RobertDevereaux]

58. Kick! n/t

[bobthedrummer]

59. .

[The Vinyl Ripper]

62. How would the psychologist know...

Whether or not torture was taking place out of their presence?

If torture was indeed being performed, even without the knowledge of the psychologist, then the psychologist would be involved in extracting information coerced by torture.