From Professor Stephen Soldz’s blog Psyche, Science, and Society
[Mark Benjamin] What worries psychologists like Reisner is that the potential loophole in the APA’s resolution echoes a similar one in the Military Commissions Act, which had a provision allegedly inserted into it at the behest of the Bush administration. President Bush signed that bill into law last October, setting new definitions in U.S. law for violations of the Geneva Conventions, which ban torture internationally. The potential loophole in the law comes with the criminalization of mental pain and suffering, but only damage that is “serious and non-transitory.” Bush said last fall the new law would allow the CIA to continue its interrogations at the black sites.
What’s at stake with the APA’s role was made clear when President Bush signed a new executive order last month reauthorizing the CIA interrogation program: The White House emphasized that all interrogations would be overseen by medical officials, as a way of ensuring the safety of prisoners. Since doctors and psychiatrists have ruled themselves out as professional groups, that leaves the psychologists to do the work. And some of them worry that the APA’s latest position will still allow the abuse of detainees psychologically, so long as the pain doesn’t last too long.
Notice that, in addition to interpreting the bizarre APA resolution, Benjamin documents that the APA’s “Ethics Director” directly lied to him regarding where the reservations on banning certain techniques originated:
“But getting a straight explanation from the APA leadership on the loophole issue was not easy. Brehm, the APA president, would not discuss the interrogation issue with Salon at all when confronted after a conference panel on Saturday. Stephen Behnke, the director of the APA’s ethics office who drafted the resolution, insisted on Saturday that Physicians for Human Rights had suggested some qualifying language with respect to sleep and sensory deprivation. In fact, PHR had fought vigorously against any qualifying language, including a letter sent to Behnke asking for the removal of any “qualifications” regarding sensory and sleep deprivation.”
PHR, in facy, had twice sent APA letters demanding that any qualifiers be removed. Our Coalition for and Ethical APA also wrote Dr. Behnke demanding changes in this pro-abuse language.
The final version of the clause allowing this was a prohibition on psychologists using “isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.” It was the addition of the phrase “in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm” that was of concern. The second clause — “or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm” — was actually added on the night before the final vote, allowing no time to even notify members of Council what was going on. Further, restraint on the use of these techniques applies only to use in interrogations, whereas, as Valtin points out, they are usually used as part of the detention environment to soften detainees up for interrogation. Thus, again, APA has parsed words to maintain psychologists right to abuse.
The question on the table is whether there is any point in further work inside the APA. Most members of its governing structures seem accepting of its role as an auxiliary of the military-intelligence establishment. Most members seem oblivious to this corruption of our professional organization. The choices now are launching a massive effort to remake the organization, to work on creating a new organization for psychologists, or to give up and accept the dominance of the military-intelligence forces, and of the accompanying daily corruption of lies and deception that characterize the APA today.
