The APA Responds

By Scott Horton

I read with dismay “The Psychologists and Gitmo,” in the current online edition of Harper’s, which woefully mischaracterizes the longstanding position of the American Psychological Association condemning the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation procedures. I find it most disconcerting that the author did not contact APA so that we could provide accurate information for the article.

The position of the American Psychological Association is unequivocal: For more than 20 years, the association has absolutely condemned any psychologist participation in torture. At its annual convention this past August, APA’s governing Council of Representatives (the association’s 168 member policy-making body) adopted a resolution that expands upon earlier policy statements to specify that interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, which are associated with “enhanced” interrogations, are unethical and prohibited.

Immediately following that action, The Washington Post called APA’s 2007 resolution “a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s anti- terrorism policies.” Furthermore, in his Sept. 25, 2007, statement to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dr. Allen Keller, Director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture and a member of the Physicians for Human Rights’ Advisory Council, wrote, “The American Psychological Association has specifically banned its members from participation in the tactics that allegedly make up the CIA’s ‘enhanced’ interrogation program.” The Washington Post and Dr. Keller are exactly correct regarding APA’s position.

With the recent posting on the Internet of what has been identified as the U.S. military’s 2003 operating manual for the Guantanamo detention center, attention has been directed to the use of isolation and sensory deprivation as interrogation procedures. APA policy specifically prohibits using any such technique, alone or in combination with other techniques for the purpose of breaking down a detainee. In a recent, public exchange (found at www.apa.org) with an author of APA’s 2007 resolution, I directly addressed this issue: “Given the concerns that have been expressed let me state clearly and unequivocally the 2007 Resolution should never be interpreted as allowing isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation, or sleep deprivation either alone or in combination to be used as interrogation techniques to break down a detainee in order to elicit information.” This position builds upon a 2006 APA resolution, which stated that psychologists must act in accordance with human rights instruments relevant to their roles.

APA’s Ethics Committee, with input from our members, is working on a casebook and commentary that will use a vignette-based approach to clarify any perceived ambiguities in APA’s position, and that will reiterate and reaffirm that “enhanced” interrogation techniques (also known as “no-touch torture” and “torture light”) are unethical and prohibited.

Sincerely,

Stephen Behnke, J.D., Ph.D.

Director of Ethics

American Psychological Association