SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
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
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.
Stephen Behnke, J.D., Ph.D.
Director of Ethics
American Psychological Association
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
On a Friday evening in January, a thousand people at the annual California Native Plant Society conference in San Jose settled down to a banquet and a keynote speech delivered by an environmental historian named Jared Farmer. His chosen topic was the eucalyptus tree and its role in California’s ecology and history. The address did not go well. Eucalyptus is not a native plant but a Victorian import from Australia. In the eyes of those gathered at the San Jose DoubleTree, it qualified as “invasive,” “exotic,” “alien” — all dirty words to this crowd, who were therefore convinced that the tree was dangerously combustible, unfriendly to birds, and excessively greedy in competing for water with honest native species.
In his speech, Farmer dutifully highlighted these ugly attributes, but also quoted a few more positive remarks made by others over the years. This was a reckless move. A reference to the tree as “indigenously Californian” elicited an abusive roar, as did an observation that without the aromatic import, the state would be like a “home without its mother.” Thereafter, the mild-mannered speaker was continually interrupted by boos, groans, and exasperated gasps. Only when he mentioned the longhorn beetle, a species imported (illegally) from Australia during the 1990s with the specific aim of killing the eucalyptus, did he earn a resounding cheer.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A tourism company in Australia announced a service that will allow users to take the “world’s biggest selfies,” and a Texas man accidentally killed himself while trying to pose for a selfie with a handgun.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”