Re: [tips] From the Desk of APA President James Bray

[Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D.]

Title: tag

Louis Schmier wrote: Mike, putting on my "devil's advocate" shirt, what if such psychologists, APA members or not, honestly perceive what we may call "torture" as "tough interrogation?" The issue of "What is torture?" has been codified into American Psychological Association (APA) policy on four occasions with vary level of specificity and nuance. I've provided a brief synopsis below but can provide more detail, if requested. 1986 Human Rights Resolution on torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. When this resolution was passed by APA Council of Representatives (CoR) as policy, it included no definition of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDTP). It was a general statement of principle. 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www.webster.edu/peacepsychology/2006ResolutionTorture.html). This resolution was adopted to replace the 1986 resolution and is a general resolution against torture (i.e., not just focused on settings involving interrogations).  The new Resolution was broader in scope than the 1986 policy and included definitions of torture and CIDTP. The definition of torture was taken from the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and codified as APA policy.  That definition reads: [T]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 [e.g., governmental, religious, political, organizational] capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions [in accordance with both domestic and international law]; As no formal definition of CIDTP exists in international law (a relatively new and evolving endeavor), the U.S. definition of CIDTP from the McCain Amendment was used, which states: BE IT RESOLVED, that the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means treatment or punishment by a psychologist that, in accordance with the McCain Amendment(3), 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(4), 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." (3) McCain Amendment: Amendment No. 1977 HR 2863, the Defense Appropriations Bill of 2006 introduced by Senator John McCain (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2005_record&docid=cr05oc05-19). (4 Specifically, United States Reservation I.1 of the Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm) 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." 2007 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" (http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/notorture0807.html). This Resolution focused specifically on interrogation settings, reiterated the 2006 definitions, and included a list of prohibited psychologist behaviors. It states: BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques considered torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Geneva Conventions; the 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; the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners: or the World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo. An absolute prohibition against the following techniques therefore arises from, is understood in the context of, and is interpreted according to these texts: mock executions; water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation; sexual humiliation; rape; cultural or religious humiliation; exploitation of fears, phobias or psychopathology; induced hypothermia; the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances; 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; isolation; sensory deprivation and over-stimulation; sleep deprivation; or the threatened use of any of the above techniques to an individual or to members of an individual’s family. Psychologists are absolutely prohibited from knowingly planning, designing, participating in or assisting in the use of all condemned techniques at any time and may not enlist others to employ these techniques in order to circumvent this resolution's prohibition; You will note that this includes the various techniques outlined in many news articles and governmental reports as enhanced interrogation techniques. 2008 Referendum Petition (http://www.apa.org/ethics/advisory-group-final.pdf). The APA membership voted in 2008 to pass a resolution that read as follows: Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights[7]. This Referendum extends the issue such that psychologists are prohibited from working at sites of torture as defined previously.  The full implementation text adopted by CoR in February 2009 is provided at the above link. This Referendum builds on the 2006 and 2007 Resolutions noting that torture and CIDTP results not just from specific behaviors but also conditions of confinement. It is important to recognize that the Department of Defense and the military have been at odds over the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" for some time.  The military has argued for strict use of the Army Field Manual in relation to interrogations (torture and CIDTP are prohibited). Their rationale has been that the "enhanced techniques" fail to result in reliable information and that it opens up U.S. soldiers to being victims of torture when they themselves are captured. To Peace, Linda -- Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology and International Human Rights Past-President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence (Div. 48, APA) Webster University 470 East Lockwood St. Louis, MO  63119 Main Webpage:  http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/   wool...@webster.edu "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 contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)