Psychologists Paid by Guantanamo's Masters Will Never Dismantle Their House of Torture
by: Roy Eidelson
March 13, 2012
Amid disturbing reports that psychologists were involved in the abuse
and torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, the American
Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Psychological Ethics and
National Security (PENS) met in the summer of 2005. Over two days, they
considered whether the Bush administration's no-holds-barred "enhanced
interrogation" policies crossed ethical boundaries for military
psychologists. Six of the nine voting task force members were on the
payroll of the military/intelligence establishment, and several of them
worked in the chains of command when and where instances of abuse and
torture had reportedly occurred. So, we should not be surprised by the
task force's conclusion that psychologists play an important role in
keeping detainee interrogations "safe, legal, ethical, and effective."
This assessment affirmed, nearly verbatim, the military's own
description of Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) psychologists
- a description that had been provided to the task force in writing
before their deliberations even began.
Professional psychology has made valuable contributions to national
security through collaborative efforts with government agencies - and it
will undoubtedly continue to do so. But does anyone truly believe that
crucial determinations about psychological ethics should ever
be guided by the views and agenda of the secretary of defense or the
director of the CIA? The many glaring flaws associated with the PENS
Report are especially revealing since the APA is, after all, an
organization of psychologists. It's, therefore, very unlikely that the
task force organizers were somehow unaware of the potent psychological
influences of power differentials on group dynamics; of authority
structures and conformity pressures on independent decision-making; and
of self-interest on objective, unbiased analysis. It's far more likely
the organizers knew exactly how to create the conditions that would
reliably produce the outcome they sought.
Today, a grassroots campaign
is underway calling on the APA to annul the PENS Report. This call for
annulment is ultimately inseparable from important issues of
accountability and transparency. Audre Lorde's reminder that "the
master's tools will never dismantle the master's house" is helpful in
describing the challenge. The key leadership of the APA today includes
several high-level staff members who were central figures in the PENS
task force fiasco. Similarly, two current board members were also on the
board in 2005 when it approved the PENS Report in an emergency session.
At a time when the destructive and corrupting consequences of too much
power in too few hands have never been more apparent in corporate
boardrooms on Wall Street (and elsewhere), how much different is the
situation at APA headquarters?
In the six years since the PENS Report was issued, APA leadership has
never encouraged a thorough reconsideration of the task force's
deliberations or the report's conclusions.
And they have never, even in hindsight, expressed regret for any
decisions made - despite the fact that the passage of time has
repeatedly brought to light further evidence
that psychologists acted as planners, consultants, researchers and
overseers to abusive and torturous detainee interrogations. Sadly, APA
instead has relied on stonewalling and obfuscation. Why was the PENS
Report put to an "emergency" vote of the board alone, rather than
bringing it before the Council of Representatives which, according to
the APA, "has sole authority to set policy"? Why was the head of the
Practice Directorate given a lead role in the PENS proceedings even
though his spouse had been one of the psychologists at the Guantanamo
Bay Detention Center? Were representatives of the military/intelligence
sector involved in the actual selection of members for the APA task
force? Why were the identities of task force members not included in the
report itself and not made readily available to the press or to APA's
membership? And so on. Even at this late date, official answers to these
and other longstanding questions would be welcome.
It's crucial to recognize that the PENS Report remains a highly
influential and authoritative policy document today. The report is used
by the Department of Defense as guidance for BSCT psychologists; by
military psychologists seeking to advance "operational psychology" as an
area of specialization that includes aggressive counterintelligence and
counterterrorism operations; and by the APA Ethics Committee as a guide
to ethical behavior in national security settings. The importance and
urgency of annulment are made even clearer by current moves in Congress
to restore and legalize the use of torturous interrogation techniques.
If these efforts succeed, in all likelihood psychologists will be called
upon again to oversee and implement morally repugnant practices.
Meanwhile, the annulment campaign is drawing broad support. To date, 25
psychology and human rights organizations have officially endorsed the
call, and over 1,400 individuals have stepped forward to sign the annulment petition online.
They include a past president of the APA, APA's president-elect, two
members of the PENS task force itself, current and past presidents of
APA divisions, psychologists who work with torture survivors and
psychologists who have spent their careers working with veterans at VA
hospitals. At the same time, recognition of the urgent need for
annulment extends well beyond the profession of psychology alone. Also
among the petition signers are psychiatrists such as Robert Jay Lifton
(author of "The Nazi Doctors") and Stephen Xenakis (retired brigadier
general, US Army); scholar-activists such as Noam Chomsky and Daniel
Ellsberg; attorneys who have represented Guantanamo detainees; and
former members of the intelligence community.
Interested psychologists and non-psychologists alike can join this effort by signing the online annulment petition at www.ethicalpsychology.org/pens. Please consider doing so.
Roy Eidelson is a clinical psychologist and the president of Eidelson Consulting, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, associate director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College and a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. |
No comments:
Post a Comment