More on the lengths that the APA is going to to discredit those who
oppose the involvement of psychologists in interrogations.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: FW: Update on APA and Interrogations
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:36:41 +0100
From: Ian Parker <[log in to unmask]>
To: Marcelle Bartolo-Abela <[log in to unmask]>
CC: <[log in to unmask]>,"Mark Burton" <[log in to unmask]>
References: <[log in to unmask]>



hi. thanks. i`m copying this reply to carolyn and mark. ian

Discourse Unit web resources are at www.discourseunit.com
MMU email disclaimer is at http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer


>>> "Marcelle Bartolo-Abela" <[log in to unmask]> 20/09/2007 08:23:25 >>>
I just got this from Peter, thought I'd forward it to you for your and Dr Kagan's interest. Gives more ideas on how APA tends to address things it disagrees with (despite freedom of speech being protected by the US Constitution!).
Mars

------ Forwarded Message
From: Steven Reisner <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:13:20 -0400
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Update on APA and Interrogations

Hi Everyone,

I am sending an update on what has been happening at APA with the issue of psychologists and interrogations. As many of you probably know the voices of those of us who oppose psychologists' being part of the machinery of interrogation at CIA and DoD detention centers were loud and clear at the convention in August (for a sample of news coverage, please see www.ethicalapa.com <http://www.ethicalapa.com> ). Many of us participated in a mini-convention on the issue and at a town meeting, where the majority of attendees clearly were opposed to psychologists' participation, in contrast to the APA leadership and the Council of Representatives. (much of this was covered on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/20/1628253).

One of the more controversial presentations at the mini-convention was Jean Maria Arrigo's brave expose on the conflict of interest and bias in the APA's attempts to address this issue, beginning with the PENS Task Force in 2005. The PENS (Psychological Ethics and National Security) Task Force set APA policy on interrogations and, it turns out, the majority of its member worked for the Defense Department and were involved in military and/or CIA interrogations, training or research. Dr. Arrigo was one of a minority of non-military members and in her presentation she bravely blew the whistle on these conflicts of interest, even though some of those who had guided the Task Force to its pro-Guantanamo conclusions were in the room (Amy Goodman broadcast much of Dr. Arrigo's presentation on Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/20/1628234).

Since that presentation, there has been a concerted effort on the part of certain senior members of APA leadership to discredit Dr. Arrigo. These attacks have been, for the most part, aimed at her character, rather than her arguments. APA President Brehm has circulated such a letter by Dr. Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter, Chair of the PENS Task Force; a second letter by former APA President Koocher was posted on his website and widely circulated.

The Coalition for an Ethical APA has responded to this attempt to distort the historical record by issuing a letter of our own, documenting the evidence for Dr. Arrigo's assertions, and countering the APA letters' spin on the facts, as well as the unfounded personal innuendo.

Please read the attached letter. It provides a comprehensive summary of the evidence in the public record on psychologists' complicity in abusive detainee interrogations. It also documents the APA's continued attempts to disguise its own complicity in maintaining that status quo. If you would, please post it on any website where the communications from Drs. Brehm, Moorehead-Slaughter, or Koocher have been circulated, or where there might be interest.

For those of you who are not clear on what the Council did and did vote for in San Francisco, here is a summary: At the Sunday meeting, the APA Council of Representatives voted on two measures relevant to this issue. Council passed a resolution that included a ban on psychologists' participation in 20 torture techniques. We (by 'we' I mean the Coalition) hope this ban has the effect once and for all in preventing psychologists from any participation whatsoever in abusive, aversive, or coercive interrogations or any abusive processes whatever in detainee settings. Unfortunately, language worked into the resolution during the final negotiations qualified this ban in ways that we find unacceptable. Many techniques are only banned when "used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process" and not when used as part of the conditions of detention in preparation for interrogation. And four of the techniques - isolation, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and sensory overstimulation - are only banned if "used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.” This language is quite similar to language used by the Bush administration to permit these very techniques to continue to be used at CIA black sites. Thus we have determined that our fight must continue until the APA actually states unequivocally that psychologists may not participate in any operation utilizing any such techniques in any manner in detention centers (outside of temporary routine prison operations).

The so-called 'moratorium amendment,' which would have prohibited psychologists from participating in any operation in any capacity, other than health care, at sites where human rights were being violated failed by a large margin.

These two issues remain our highest agenda and is the reason that many APA members have chosen to withhold their dues (see www.withholdapadues.com <http://www.withholdapadues.com> ).

Again, please read the attached letter to President Brehm. You can find it posted, as well, at: http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/09/18/letter-to-apa-president-brehm-responds-to-attacks-on-jean-maria-arrigo/

I have included a summary of the letter below. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.

Steven

Steven Reisner, Ph.D.
225 West 15th Street, Apt C
New York, NY 10011
phone 212-633-8391
email: [log in to unmask]


SUMMARY:

Dr. Arrigo’s paper was presented as part of the mini-convention on psychologists, ethics and interrogations held at the APA Convention in San Francisco; part was later broadcast on Amy Goodman’s public television news program, Democracy Now!
 
The attached letter counters distortions, inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the letters written by Drs. Koocher and Moorehead-Slaughter, with documentation from the public record and from the archived records of the PENS Task Force. Below is a summary of the letter’s contents. Please read the attached letter for a full rebuttal of the issues raised by Drs. Koocher and Moorehead-Slaughter.
 
Dr. Arrigo expressed the following concerns about the PENS process:
 
Ø Six of 10 members were employed within the US military and intelligence community at the time of the PENS meetings. The biographies and self-reports of several task forces members place them directly in the chain of command that, according to investigations by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, as well as reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and elsewhere in the press, oversaw abusive interrogations conducted by military, the CIA and other agencies.
 
Ø Two top APA officials, including Dr. Koocher, played dominant roles in the task force, casting doubt on the independence of its process and its eventual conclusions.
 
Ø Several previously unacknowledged observers of the task force had high level connections to the national security community and/or were engaged in actively lobbying Congress and the Administration for defense and intelligence appropriations for psychological research.
 
Ø The task force process was kept confidential. Only APA officials, no actual task force members, were authorized to discuss the PENS report publicly.
 
Ø After independently reviewing the PENS procedures and staffing, two former US counterintelligence professionals found the process consistent with “a typical legitimization process for a decision made at a higher level in the Department of Defense.”
 
In response, Dr. Koocher distributed a letter that contains distortions and in some cases outright fabrications, including the false assertion that Dr. Arrigo’s father committed suicide, and that this suicide somehow informed Dr. Arrigo’s position on the PENS process. Dr. Koocher also incorrectly attributed to Dr. Arrigo a statement describing the Task Force membership as predominantly military. It is clear that Dr. Koocher constructed the argument in terms of “civilians” vs. “military” in order to obscure the actual relation of the six PENS members to the Department of Defense. What Dr. Arrigo did say was that “Six of the ten [Task Force] members were highly placed in the Department of Defense, as contractors and military officers.” There is no disputing the veracity of this statement.
 
Finally, Dr. Koocher inferred that he played a rather minor role in the PENS process. We provide ample evidence to refute his contention and show that he indeed played a dominant role.
 
Similarly, we respond to Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter’s letter. Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter devoted the first page of her letter to denying that she works for the CIA or military. She denies, as well, that she has received compensation for her work and denies providing information to the military. We point out that no such charges were ever made by Dr. Arrigo, or anyone else, and Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter’s defense against the non-existent charge sets a false tone for the entire debate.
 
Dr. Moorehead-slaughter presents a brief excerpt from the PENS email listserv in which Dr. Arrigo expressed polite praise for the PENS process and report. Yet Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter at the same time ignores the extensive accompanying, contextual documentation by Dr. Arrigo (as well as Mike Wessells, another PENS member) expressing grave concern along with her polite praise. Both Drs. Arrigo and Wessells repeatedly raised serious concerns about the process and the resulting report, concerns that were consistently minimized or dismissed.
 
Dr. Moorehead-slaughter denies that anyone attempted to hide the PENS membership from the public. We present straightforward evidence from the PENS listserv that the APA leadership tried to do exactly that.
 
Dr Moorehead-slaughter, too, denies any serious conflicts of interest or bias in the PENS process, but fails to address all the evidence presented by Dr. Arrigo and by many others, of extensive conflicts of interest and bias. Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter does not explain the evidence that a majority of Task Force members were directly involved in detainee interrogations or interrogation research and this in itself compromised their ability to independently assess the ethics of psychologists’ participation in such interrogations. Further, there is evidence in the PENS listserv to indicate that the PENS report itself had to be approved by the DoD before its military members could assent. And finally, although DR. Moorehead-Slaughter makes general claims about PENS members’ “central roles in fighting detainee abuse,” she ignores the extensive evidence that several PENS members were involved in the chains of command under which abuse was reported to have taken place.
 
In refuting each of these claims, we provide extensive documentary evidence from the public record and from PENS materials. All APA members, and other members of the public concerned about human rights are encouraged to read the entire letter. We also urge Dr. Brehm and other APA officials, in the interests of fairness, scholarly integrity and democratic debate, to circulate our letter as they did Dr. Moorehead-slaughter’s letter.
 
We engage in this effort in order to correct the historical record. We further hope to help others understand the conflicts of interest in the APA processes that govern the organization’s policy-making on psychologists' involvement in detainee interrogations where abuses have taken place and where basic human rights continue to be violated. We believe it is necessary for the APA to clear the air once and for all and to develop simple and unambiguous policies against such participation.
 
We were disappointed that the resolution passed at this past summer’s convention, which began as an important clarification of APA policy against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was, in the end, compromised by loopholes that made many wonder whether the APA was tacitly providing cover for continued psychologist participation in CIA “enhanced interrogations.” We wish to work together with the APA leadership to remove these loopholes and to develop an unambiguous policy. We also urge the Association to put ethics first and to reject the presence of psychologists, except as direct health providers, in national security settings that do not sustain basic human rights. We call upon all psychologists, and citizens, to work with us to accomplish these goals.
 
 
Steven Reisner
Stephen Soldz
Brad Olson
For the Coalition for an Ethical APA



------ End of Forwarded Message





--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date: 21/09/07 14:02

___________________________________
COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]