A really helpful summary of the issues in the APA controversy that
contextualises the referendum victory.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Psychologists Reject the Dark Side: American Psychological
Association Members Reject Participation in Bush Detention Centers
From:    "Stephen Soldz" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:    Tue, September 23, 2008 2:05 am
To:      [log in to unmask]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a new article on the APA referendum by Brad Olson and I:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Psychologists-Reject-the-D-by-Stephen-Soldz
-080922-841.html


September 22, 2008 at 14:58:30




<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Psychologists-Reject-the-D-by-Stephen-Sold
z-080922-841.html> Psychologists Reject the Dark Side: American
Psychological Association Members Reject Participation in Bush Detention
Centers

	 <http://www.opednews.com/author/author80.html>


<http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=Psychologists-Reject-
the-D-by-Stephen-Soldz-080922-841.html>

By Stephen Soldz & Brad Olson

The movement against U.S. torture experienced a significant victory last
week. The members of the American Psychological Association [APA] rejected
the policies of their leadership, policies that abetted the Bush
administration's program of torture and detainee abuse. By a vote of 59%,
the members passed a referendum stating that APA members may not work in
U.S. detention centers that are outside of or in violation of international
law or the U.S. Constitution "unless they are working directly for the
persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect
human rights." Passage of this referendum is a significant milestone in a
years long effort by activist psychologists to change policies that
encouraged participation in detainee interrogations because psychologists,
the APA leadership claimed, helped keep those interrogations "safe, legal,
and ethical."

Since 2004, news reports and government documents
<http://counterpunch.org/soldz06072007.html>  have provided evidence of the
central role of psychologists in designing, implementing, and disseminating
the administrations' program of abusive interrogations, whether conducted by
the CIA
<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?printable
=true&currentPage=all>  in its secret "black
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable
=true> sites" or by the Defense Department at Guantánamo
<http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4?printable=trueht
tp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4?printable=true> ,
and in Iraq <http://counterpunch.org/soldz05272008.html>  and Afghanistan.
As Vanity Fair reporter Katherine Eban described the CIA side of this
equation:

"I... discovered that psychologists weren't merely complicit in America's
aggressive new interrogation regime. Psychologists, working in secrecy, had
actually designed the tactics and trained interrogators in them while on
contract to the C.I.A."

On the Defense Department side, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported
in June 2008 on the role of military psychologists in helping design the
harsh interrogation techniques used at Guantánamo. As Senator Levin
described in his opening remarks:

"a... senior CIA lawyer, Jonathan Fredman, who was chief counsel to the
CIA's CounterTerrorism Center, went to GTMO, attended a meeting of GTMO
staff and discussed a memo proposing the use of aggressive interrogation
techniques. That memo had been drafted by a psychologist and psychiatrist
from GTMO who, a couple of weeks earlier, had attended the training given at
Fort Bragg by instructors from the JPRA SERE school.

While the memo remains classified, minutes from the meeting where it was
discussed are not. Those minutes (TAB 7) clearly show that the focus of the
discussion was aggressive techniques for use against detainees."

The minutes
<http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Documents.SASC.061708.pdf>
from that meeting show this psychologist and psychiatrist recommending
creating an atmosphere of "controlled chaos," which would "foster dependence
and compliance," through the creation of "psychological stress" by means of
using such techniques as " sleep deprivation, withholding food, isolation,
loss of time." This strategy was implemented and became standard operating
procedure.

For example, in September 2003, young (16 or 17 year old) Mohammed Jawad
became upset during interrogation, talking to pictures on the wall and
crying for his mother. A military psychologist, a behavioral science
consultant, was brought in for guidance. She recommended
<http://www.opednews.com/2008/08/15/press-release-military-psychologist-refu
ses-to-testify-about-abusive-treatment-of-detainee-at-guantanamo/>  Jawad be
placed in a month of "linguistic isolation" while the interrogator ratcheted
up the pressure to break him down. This treatment apparently contributed to
a suicide  <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/14/202415/685/395/568118>
attempt by Jawad.

Evidence has accumulated of psychologists designing and contributing to
detainee abuses sometimes amounting to torture. Despite the overwhelming
evidence, the APA has steadfastly insisted that psychologists should not
participate in torture; they argued, rather, that psychologists were vitally
needed to help interrogators better obtain information while simultaneously,
according to the APA, preventing detainee abuses. The APA used a multitude
of techniques to defend their policy. They appointed
<http://www.opednews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/apa_faq_coalition_commen
ts_v12c.pdf> a task force to formulate ethics policy around national
security interrogations without informing the membership or the public that
the majority of members were from the military-intelligence establishment.
The APA passed anti-torture
<http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16711> resolutions while
rejecting  <http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/26/3414/> attempts
to withdraw psychologists from sites that violated human rights or even from
the interrogations at Guantanamo and the CIA's black sites.

The APA also ignored Open Letters
<http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0607-06.htm>  from hundreds of their
members. At times these efforts became ludicrous doublespeak. An APA Board
member, for instance, sent around an email
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Torture-Trainers-and-t-by-Stephen-Sold
z-080624-297.html>  claiming that the very Senate Armed Services hearing
that implicated military psychologists in the design of torture techniques
actually exonerated the psychologists and the discipline. The association's
ethics director even claimed
<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19994.htm>  documents
released by the ACLU showed the APA's "policy of engagement" was working to
protect detainees when the document in question apparently merely reported
that one psychologist in Iraq once stopped an interrogation prior to  the
detainee dying or, perhaps, suffering serious physical damage. Through it
all, the APA maintained <http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/?page_id=20>
its close ties <http://200.19.92.28/psicologia/pdf/101/artigo_13.pdf>  to
the military-intelligence establishment.

While the APA leadership resisted all challenges to its position, the
members and other psychologists  and their allies did not remain silent.
Dissident members worked tirelessly to change the organizations' position.
Some worked within official association committees. During 2006-2007,
members pushed a Moratorium resolution that would have temporarily halted
participation in interrogations at the detention sites; the measure was
undercut by APA organizational manipulations, and a derivative effort was
decisively defeated by the associations' Council of Representatives in
August 2006. A number of prominent psychologists - including a former ethics
committee Chair <http://kspope.com/apa/index.php> , a former
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-did-the-American-Psych-by-Bryant-Welch
-080727-467.html> Executive Director of one of the associations' major
divisions, and a former division
<http://www.opednews.com/2007/10/07/noted-psychologist-beth-shinn-resigns-fr
om-american-psychological-association/> President - resigned in protest.
New York Times bestselling author Mary Pipher returned
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mary_pip_070824_why_i_ve_returned_m
y.htm> an award to the APA. Hundreds stopped paying membership dues, aided
by a policy that allowed dues withholders to remain members for two years.
Colleagues in other countries expressed their disapproval  of APA policies.
Physicians for Human Rights documented U.S.
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2007-08-02.html>
psychological torture and many
<http://actnow-phr.org/phr/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=5944351>
times called for changes
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/letter-2008-08-14.html>  in APA
policies permitting participation in the settings where that torture
occurred.

After years of failing to effect real change through the associations'
Council of Representatives - which infrequently
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-did-the-American-Psych-by-Bryant-Welch
-080727-467.html> challenges the APA leadership on issues of vital
importance to those leaders -  dissident members and allies turned in 2008
to new strategies designed simultaneously to take advantage of, and to
bypass, the official structures. Members of the withholdapadues
<http://www.withholdapadues.com/> group found a never before used provision
in the association by-laws allowing for a member-initiated policy
referendum. Three psychologists - Dan Aalbers, Brad Olson, and Ruth
Fallenbaum - got to work writing a referendum rejecting the participation of
psychologists at detention centers operating outside of [as in the Geneva
Conventions don't apply] or in violation of [as in enhanced interrogations
are approved] international law or the Constitution. APA rules require that
one percent of the active members' signatures be obtained on a petition in
order to get it submitted to the members for a vote. It took only a matter
of weeks to obtain more than the necessary numbers.

The campaign generated amazing grassroots activism. People never before
heard from were found emailing their successes in convincing other
colleagues to vote. Several brief videos were made by members  and
distributed on YouTube
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GDH4V8A_Qc&eurl=http://www.psysr.org/about/
committees/endtorture/voteyes.php>  and Google
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=752182170409437361> Video. Two
<http://www.opednews.com/2008/05/09/community-psychologist-write-apa-leaders
hip-on-interrogations/>  APA divisions
<http://www.opednews.com/2008/08/22/society-for-the-scientific-study-of-soci
al-issues-spssi-supports-apa-referendum/>  lined up in support. Conversation
about the referendum on psychologist-run listservs was greater than that on
any other topic in memory.

The opposition raised concerns, especially among forensic psychologists;
they were concerned that the language could somehow be misunderstood to ban
psychologists working in domestic prisons where abuses are prevalent. This
possibility was problematic for many referendum supporters. Many of those
actively supporting the referendum are deeply concerned about the horrific
conditions in much of the U.S. criminal justice system. Yet, it seemed
impossible to tackle all issues at once, and the referendum was designed to
focus only upon "national security" detainees, held in abusive conditions,
with few or no rights. Thus, the referendum sponsors issued a statement
<http://www.opednews.com/2008/08/08/support-for-psychologists-referendum-aga
inst-collusion-in-detainee-abuse/>  that clarified the applicability of the
referendum. Nevertheless, this statement failed to allay the concerns of
some that the referendum could cost psychologists their jobs.

In an unprecedented development, illustrating the high stakes involved in
the potential policy change, the Defense Department issued a press
<http://www.opednews.com/2008/08/22/defense-department-issues-statement-oppo
sing-apa-referendum-there-are-no-neutrals-there/> release with "talking
points" opposing the referendum. The first two of these talking points
unintentionally emphasized the need for the referendum:


"Humane treatment and ensuring detainees are not subjected to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment is required in accordance with U.S.
law.

Behavioral science consultants do NOT support interrogations that aren't in
accordance with applicable law."

U.S law, as interpreted by the present administration, redefines
traditionally proscribed detention and interrogation procedures as "humane"
and "legal." Therefore, referendum supporters pointed out, this requirement
to follow "applicable law" does not protect military, or CIA, psychologists
from participating in abuses that would be inhumane if judged by
international standards.

The referendum ballots went out by mail on August 1st and were due back on
September 15th. Two days later, the results were announced. The referendum
won with 59% of the vote. Furthermore, the turnout, at nearly 15,000
members, was among the highest in any APA election.

The passage of the referendum constitutes a giant step toward creating a
united front of health professions opposed to detainee abuse. While the APA
referendum policy differs from policy statements by other associations in
significant details-its focus on settings as opposed to the interrogations
themselves-it follows previous policy statements from the American
<http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/369/ceja_10a06.pdf> Medical
Association and the American
<http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200601.pdf>
Psychiatric Association opposing participation in interrogations. This
united front will increase the pressure on the administration to remove
health professionals from their roles aiding these abusive detention
policies. It will also escalate the accumulating pressures for a radically
different detention policy under the new U.S. presidential administration
and Congress next January.

Referendum passage constitutes a giant step forward for those psychologists
who have been fighting to change the APA's policies on involvement in the
detention centers. But the struggle
<http://www.opednews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Goodman-PsychologistsInD
enial.pdf> of dissident psychologists is far from over. First, there is a
disagreement with APA leadership as to when the policy change goes into
effect; the leadership claimed initially that the bylaws state that the
change doesn't go into effect till next August, while referendum supporters
believe this claim is an egregious misreading of the bylaws. Discussions
continue regarding the details of referendum implementation.

Moreover, while the APA's policy is in the process of changing, the
organizational and policy conditions-the culture that allowed the APA to
advocate for years in support of psychologist participation in detainee
interrogations-have not changed. Activists are focused upon several
additional steps to bring about a rejuvenation of their association and
their professions.

There is a strong campaign afoot to elect one of the activists as APA
President to make sure the new policy is firmly implemented and backed by
the organization, as well as to push other efforts making human rights and
social justice more central within the profession of psychology. Steven
Reisner, a New York psychologist is running an active campaign
<http://www.reisnerforpresident.org/> . In the first nomination phase of the
campaign, he received the highest number of votes among the five winning
candidates. Passage of the referendum should provide an even stronger boost
to his campaign. Ballots go out to the APA membership this October and are
due back November 15.

APA members have been deeply disturbed by another prior action of the
Association. In 2002, its ethics committee placed a clause in the ethics
code, allowing laws, regulations, and government orders to override
professional ethics. These members are concerned that the clause provides an
offensive loophole that is a variation on the Nuremberg defense - "I was
just following orders" - into the ethics code.

The APA Council of Representatives called on the ethics committee to address
this problem in 2005. Despite these instructions, the association has
resisted clarifying this clause by adding a phrase as simple as "except when
violating fundamental human rights". Other disturbing 2002 modifications to
the APA ethics code weakened protections for research participants, such as
removing a requirement for informed consent from participants "where
otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations." Such a
clause could, for example, allow experimentation on detainees without their
permission, a disturbing violation of professional guidelines and
international agreements.

Activist psychologists and their allies also are pushing for accountability
for past abuses by psychologists. While some psychologists
<http://www.opednews.com/2008/08/15/press-release-military-psychologist-refu
ses-to-testify-about-abusive-treatment-of-detainee-at-guantanamo/> ,
including APA  <http://ajobonline.com/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140>
members, have been documented to have participated in abuses likely
constituting torture, the APA ethics committee has consistently stalled
action against <http://counterpunch.org/bond05192008.html>  or refused to
open cases against these psychologists. This needs to stop.

Another form of accountability is a 'setting right' of the historical
record. Given the known facts regarding psychologists and their roles in
detainee abuse, and given the extensive denial of these facta and their
significance by APA leadership, it is critical to create a detailed public
record of the contributions of psychologists to the dark side over the last
seven years. It is imperative that a Psychologist Truth Commission be
created that will examine all materials, existing in the public record or
available through investigation, and construct such a permanent record. Also
necessary is a careful examination of the many other organizational,
ethical, and policy issues that allowed the psychological profession and its
major professional organization to become complicit in detainee abuse over
the last seven years. Clinical psychologists often encourage their clients
to face harsh truths. It is similarly necessary for our profession to face
these somewhat cold and difficult realities. Only this will prevent us from
recreating this sad episode in our profession's history when the next
national or international crisis hits.

The implications of passage of the referendum extend beyond the APA and
psychology. The referendum will put additional pressure on the DoD to remove
psychologists from their roles aiding interrogations and behavior
management. It will also create additional pressure for the development of a
mental health system for detainees that is completely isolated from chain of
command pressures. While the DoD is not necessarily bound by APA policy, it
generally follows professional ethics policies; to do otherwise could make
its efforts to recruit and retain psychologists and other professionals
substantially more difficult. The implications for the CIA's "enhanced
interrogation" program are less certain, given the secrecy under which that
program is conducted. Yet, even there, the APA referendum will increase
pressure for a new administration and Congress to shut down the program."

Finally, passage of the referendum is being heralded by the wider public as
a sign of an impending rejection by U.S. citizens of the "dark side" which
has taken over so much of our government and country in recent years. This
feeling was expressed by the conservative commentator, anti-torture
activist, and blogger Andrew Sullivan who headlined his posting on the
referendum's passage with "Know
<http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/know-hope.html
> Hope." Congratulatory emails from around the world have indicated that
many find hope in our psychologist colleagues' rejection of the dark side.
"Finally, good news from the U.S." one email said. These correspondents join
us in hoping that this rejection of official torture and abuse will be
followed by a wholesale rejection from the American public and government.

 ----

Stephen Soldz
Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development
Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis
1581 Beacon St.
Brookline, MA 02446
[log in to unmask]






___________________________________
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/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderators: Rebekah Pratt ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])