Hi Y'all,
I'm not sure that the APA can be held accountable for the actions of the
U.S. government!
Having said that, the 2006 Resolution is grounded in international and
not domestic law. Hence, its strength. So regardless of how a current
administration of a country defines torture, the United Nations
Convention Against Torture definition is codified in the 2006
Resolution. This is the primary legal document on this issue in
international law.
The failure to address international law in the PENS report is, in my
opinion, a significant problem. Note that the PENS report predates the
2006 Resolution and the Resolution was written in part to address that
failure.
Seeing that APA most likely has little influence in the Oval Office, all
it can do is work toward policy in relation to psychologist involvement
in such sites grounded in the application of international human rights
law. While the Resolution is in place, as noted previously, there is
additional work to be done and resolutions that are appearing before
Council in August. I urge individuals to contact their Council
Representatives to address this issue - http://cor.apa.org/corlist.cfm .
Urge them to pass a Moratorium Resolution on Psychologist's Involvement
in Interrogations at US Detention Centers for Foreign Detainees and
Individuals Identified as "Enemy Combatants."
Personally, I think there should be a national call to close such
detention sites, the provision of attorneys for prisoners, and a return
to the Geneva Convention. Of course, as psychologists we can call for
this based on what we know about the effects of indefinite detention and
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment on an individual psychologically.
However, this clearly goes way beyond the issue of interrogations as is
currently being discussed here and APA has no influence on whether these
centers operate or not. Indeed, even if APA pressed a resolution
banning any psychologists from working at such sites in interrogations,
not all psychologists (maybe even not a majority) are members of APA. I
don't think APS has addressed this issue at all but please correct me if
I am wrong. Bear in mind that most of those involved are not necessarily
clinicians.
To Peace,
Linda
Christopher D. Green wrote:
But Linda, as you surely recognize, since the current government does
not recognize what is going on a Guantanamo as "torture or other
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment" none of this has ANY bearing on the actual question at
hand. And the Abu Graib incident is over (at the least the current
round) so it has no impact there either. Thus, loopholes would appear
to abound.
Regards,
Chris Green
==================
Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. wrote:
Hi Chris,
As someone who has spent time poring through the reams of material, I
think I can address this question.
Note that the 2006 Resolution was not drafted by lawyers but rather
by peace psychologists (although human rights attorneys were
consulted). There is no equivocation in the wording of the Resolution.
Perhaps the reason it appear to look like a legal document is that we
endeavored to close every possible loophole in relation to
psychologists involvement in torture and other cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment. The biggest problem I see right
now is that the APA is not taking the next necessary steps (a
moratorium on psychologist involvement in interrogations of foreign
detainees) and therefore is not living up to the adopted Resolution.
There are also significant problems with the PENS report as noted
previously and concerns about the omission of wording to the Ethical
Principles and Standards related to harm and international human rights.
Now to the participation question:
The 2006 Resolution is quite clear that psychologists can not
participate directly or indirectly in abusive interrogations. The
positions below were adopted by APA Council last August. Here is the
list of things psychologist can NOT do from the Resolution.
Psychologists can NOT:
- engage in, tolerate, direct, support, advise, or offer training in
torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading punishment.
- knowingly provide any research, instruments, or knowledge that
facilitates the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.
- participate in any procedure in which torture or other forms of
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment is used or threatened.
What psychologists must do according to the Resolution:
- Should torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment evolve during a procedure
where a psychologist is present, the psychologist shall attempt to
intervene to stop such behavior, and failing that exit the procedure.
- Psychologists shall be alert to acts of torture and other cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
punishment and have an ethical responsibility to report these acts to
the appropriate authorities.
- Psychologists shall work in accordance with international human
rights instruments relevant to their roles.
A problem arises with writing a blanket ethics and interrogation
statement. It raises questions not about just interrogations of
foreign detainees but interrogations of all prisoners within the
justice system. So, for example, should psychologists be involved in
interrogations of prisoners who are accused of crimes such as child
abuse, rape, murder, assault, etc.? Also, should psychologists be
involved in child custody hearings where they have been asked to
interview parents to determine fitness? In each case, psychologists
would be asked to question an individual and try to acquire
information that may not be in that individual's best interest. What
makes the foreign detainee issue unique are the lack of
constitutional rights which are normally afforded U.S. citizens and
the nature of the detention centers themselves (e.g., Abu Ghraib;
undiscovered detention centers; GITMO). I recognize that the
problems associated with most U.S. detention centers are issues that
also need to be addressed at some point.
To Peace,
Linda
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
--
Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and International Human Rights
Past-President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence
(Div. 48, APA) <http://www.peacepsych.org>
Steering Committee, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR)
<http://www.psysr.org>
Secretary, Raphael Lemkin Award Committee, Institute for the Study of
Genocide <http://www.isg-iags.org/>
Coordinator - Holocaust & Genocide Studies
Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights
Webster University
470 East Lockwood
St. Louis, MO 63119
Main Webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's (and woman's) best friend. . . .
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
