A secret e-mail argument among psychologists about torture

[kpete]

A secret e-mail argument among psychologists about torture

Private messages reveal a dispute at the highest levels about the proper role of psychologists in interrogation, and whether cooperating with the Bush administration was unethical.

Editor's note: Sheri Fink is a reporter for ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. You can read the American Psychological Association's private listserv about interrogations here.

By Sheri Fink
Pages 1 2

REUTERS/POOL New

May 8, 2009 | Earlier this week Salon published a ProPublica story examining the psychology profession's tortured relationship with the Bush Administration's War on Terror. We found that psychologists warned officials as early as 2002 against using potentially ineffective and dangerous interrogation techniques on detainees, according to a recently-released Senate Armed Services Committee report. However, what had been little noticed was that the same psychologists helped develop the harsh interrogation policies and practices they warned against.

As part of our report, we posted a listserv of internal emails between staff of the American Psychological Association and members of its "Psychological Ethics and National Security" task force. (Read the entire listserv here.) That listserv offers a rare look into a process that led to the adoption of an influential and controversial policy for the world's largest professional organization of psychologists, which represents the profession of psychology in the United States. It also provides a window into a heated discussion among medical professionals grappling with their ethical obligations and their possible complicity in torture.

The task force was set up after news reports suggested that psychologists and other health professionals had been complicit with abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, for example by sharing information about psychological vulnerabilities with interrogators. The group's charge was to examine the ethical dimensions of psychologists' involvement in "national security investigations" and consider whether the APA should develop policies to guide psychologists involved in those activities. The task force produced a 12-page report stating that the APA's ethics code prohibited torture, obligated psychologists to report any instances to appropriate authorities and banned psychologists from using health care information in ways that could harm detainees.

But it also gave psychologists an ethical blessing to continue consulting in national security-related interrogations. An organization of psychiatrists, in contrast, decided its physician members should not participate. In response, the Department of Defense changed its guidance to state that psychologists, but no longer psychiatrists, should participate in so-called Behavioral Science Consultation Teams or "BSCTs" (pronounced "biscuits"), which assist interrogators in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

more at:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/08/apa_listserv/

[Buzz Clik]

1. They may be trying to rationalize their involvement in torture, but it was unethical.

I've heard a lot of arguments lately that they had advise about torture and engage in it themselves because they were trying to protect this country.

Bullshit.

Their profession has rules. There are rules of war. And they broke all the rules. Period.

[jtrockville]

2. These psychologists made torture possible.

They should be banned from practicing medicine. The lawyers who wrote legal justifications should be disbarred.

And those who ordered it should stand trial at The Hague.

[zipplewrath]

3. This is why we need prosecutions

There is a recurring theme here, across the board, that if these various professionals just went to the right organization and got some letter written, they could be allowed to commit criminal acts. There is an old expression, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. It reflects the ideal that when faced with difficult decisions, you may ultimately be required to present your case to a jury. THAT is what is needed here. If these folks felt they had justifications for what they were choosing to do, let them present it to a jury of their peers. If they can convince them they are some sort of Jack Bauer hero, fine. I'm dubious they can. I suspect they are too. They knew what they were doing was wrong which is why they were all running to various government and professional offices to try to get "cover". We have to make it clear that the National Association of People Committing Crimes isn't the final authority on these things. 12 peers are. We, this nation, the law, and the tortured deserve their "day in court".

[Senator]

4. K&R