I am not optimistic about either APA or APS or any other professional psychological association/society being able to adequately "police" their own members. As in the case of Mitchell and Jessens, part of the problem is that people involved do not perceive themselves as engaging in bad or unethical or "evil" behavior. I do hope that professional societies will take steps to bar Nuremberg-type defenses but, again, I'm not sure that that will make much of a difference.
I think that there is only one real course of action. If the U.S. does not prosecute people like Mitchel and Jessens as war criminals, then some other nation, in accordance with out treaties and agreements, should do so. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] ---------Original Message--------------------- On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:04:40 -0700, Linda M. Woolf, Ph.D. wrote: Dear Colleagues, Some of you may be interested in an article from today's NYTimes - 2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11's Wake. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/12psychs.html This article discusses Mitchell and Jessens' backgrounds, involvement with the SERE program, and their later involvement in what some define as "harsh interrogations" but others call "torture." Under international law, specifically the United Nations Convention Against Torture, their actions would most likely be construed as torture. Moreover, under the Geneva Conventions (which have been argued to be non-applicable in the "war on terror"), their actions could be construed as a war crime. All of this again raises the issue of the role our professional associations play in responding to issues of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. APS has remained silent on the issue, although psychological knowledge is being used as the foundation for these abuses and members could be conceivably involved at detention sites such as Guantanamo and Bagram. APA has adopted two important Resolutions* and a Referendum** was voted on by the membership last year and theoretically enacted as policy (caveat: the final document clarifies that it is an "unenforceable" policy). APA Council voted last week to finally work towards changing the Ethics Code to close the "Nuremberg Defense" loophole (i.e., it is acceptable to just follow orders). New Ethics Code language will be brought to the next Council meeting in February. Yet, beyond the statements, has APA adequately addressed the problem? Unfortunately, despite all of the APA statements, nothing has really changed in terms of actual practice. Psychologists remain at places such as Guantanamo, which the U.N. still cites as in violation of international law and human rights standards. This highlights either the complicity of or the impotence of our professional organizations in addressing psychologist involvement in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. In terms of possible complicity, organizations such as Psychologists for Social Responsibility have called for a "Torture Commission to Examine Role of Psychologists and APA in Prisoner Abuse." In terms of powerlessness, APA has regularly responded to news reports about the actions of Mitchell and Jessen with statements noting that these two psychologists are not APA members and hence, although these psychologists' behaviors are reprehensible, outside of APA enforceability or accountability. This is a functionally true statement but one that also spotlights a mechanism for psychologists to remain involved in coercive interrogations without consequence. At the APA convention, Jonathan Turley (Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School) gave the Lynn Stuart Weiss Psychology as a Means of Attaining Peace Through World Law Lecture. In his presentation, he commented about the methods by which the law profession polices its own and how psychology fails to adequately address those within the profession who behave in ways that are unethical, illegal, etc. At lunch, we further discussed this issue and we explained to Jonathan the divide in psychology whereby some in the profession require a license and some do not. We also discussed that membership in organizations such as APA is entirely voluntary and that the Ethics Code for those without state licensing requirements is not enforceable. Based on the above, I think it is imperative that the major psychological associations work together to create better mechanisms for accountability within the profession. Many of us have cringed when seeing our colleagues diminish the profession either through their work in the entertainment industry, behaving badly in a business setting, sleeping with students, or engaging in torture. Yet all of these can continue as long as private institutions or the law allows. If psychologists do not hold APA membership or a state license, unethical behavior usually remains unchallenged by the profession. If we are truly a profession and not just a slogan, then these loopholes need to be closed. Moreover, a independent commission to examine the role of psychologist involvement in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment should be implemented. This is necessary to create a public record of the events of the past years, to endeavor to restore the integrity of the profession, and to examine what went wrong with an eye towards the prevention of similar or related human rights violations in the future. I recommended such a commission to Sharon Brehm, now past-president of APA, in 2005. The importance of such a commission was apparent in 2005 and has only been magnified in the intervening years. To Peace, Linda * 2006 American Psychological Association Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 2007/2008 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" ** 2008 Petition Referendum - 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. As psychologists, we know that human rights are inalienable and every individual possesses inherent worth and dignity. As psychologists, we know that human rights violations cause significant and lasting harm to individuals and their families. As psychologists, we know that when human rights abuses are institutionalized, our social fabric is torn causing harm to all - victims, perpetrators, bystanders, and communities. Finally, as psychologists, we also know that psychological knowledge can be, but NEVER SHOULD BE, misused for the purposes of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. - Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence Executive Committee Statement --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
