APA to work within the system for change

The American Psychological Association had a busy weekend. They passed an anti-torture compromise resolution at their annual gathering Sunday in San Francisco. You can read it here: "Substitute Motion 3: Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as 'Enemy Combatants'."

The fact that this was the third substitute motion, and that it is titled with such lawyerly care, does not suggest that the APA was eager to endorse a clear or bold policy. The ambiguity of its stance is illustrated by the headlines of articles on the APA's new reaffirmation (and by the fact that it is both new and a "reaffirmation"):

• "US Psychologists Scrap Interrogation Ban," the Washington Post headline for Sudhin Thanawala's Associated Press story reads.

• "APA Rules on Interrogation Abuse," the Post's own Shankar Vendatam reports.

• "Psychologists Back Off Ban On Detainee Aid," CBS News headlines its version of the AP report, with the subhed, "While Condemning Torture, Group Fails to Pass Resolution Banning Members From Interrogations"

• "Will psychologists still abet torture?" Salon's Mark Benjamin asks, with the subhed, "At their annual convention, psychologists officially condemned some brutal interrogation techniques, but critics decry a resolution they say isn't stringent enough."

The APA "reaffirmed" its position against participating in the kind of torture that -- imperial edicts and executive orders notwithstanding -- is already illegal. This is positive, of course, but positive in the same feebly tepid way as if they had passed a resolution reaffirming their position against licensed psychologists participating in the illegal gang-raping of small children. I suppose we should applaud this, but it's not the kind of thing that inspires much more than a polite golf clap.

The APA considered taking a real moral stand and instead opted for a kind of moral squat -- putting themselves into the kind of "stress position" to which enemy combatants are sometimes subjected, a practice that no one can say with confidence whether or not the APA's resolution forbids psychologists from participating in.

Here's Salon's Mark Benjamin:

The American Psychological Association has adopted a new resolution on the interrogation of detainees in the so-called war on terror, denouncing a list of specific interrogation techniques including some allegedly employed by the CIA.

The move comes after months of revelations that exposed how psychologists helped develop coercive interrogation programs after 9/11 for the intelligence agency and the military, and weeks after the White House announced the renewal of the CIA's "black site" interrogations -- likely to be overseen by psychologists.

But it was a step still mired in controversy. At their annual meeting in San Francisco over the weekend, the psychologists voted against a proposal that would have aligned them with the position taken by the equivalent associations of American medical doctors and psychiatrists, which have banned their members altogether from participating in interrogations at places like the military prison in Guantánamo Bay. Moreover, the group's new condemnation of nearly 20 specific interrogation techniques, in a 174-line resolution that "unequivocally condemns torture," contains gray areas ...

"The APA came in line with the minimum of its responsibilities by condemning, in certain circumstances, the most egregious forms of torture being committed in our name," said Steven Reisner, a psychologist who has been pressing the organization to withdraw from detainee interrogations. "But they left huge loopholes that permit these techniques to be used in other circumstances." ...

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.

And here is The Washington Post's Shankar Vedantam:

Interrogation policies at U.S. detention facilities went astray when officials decided to apply techniques developed to train U.S. troops to deal with torture if they were captured, said Air Force Reserve Col. Steven Kleinman.

Such techniques, developed under a military program known as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape), were meant to toughen soldiers against abuse. The techniques were never designed to help interrogators elicit useful information from prisoners, added Eric Anders, a psychoanalyst at the convention who is a graduate of the SERE program.

Neil Altman, a clinical psychologist at New York University, who had pushed to get psychologists out of detention facilities altogether, praised the APA for laying out what was prohibited. But he said the measure still allows psychologists to remain in facilities that are inherently "cruel, inhumane and degrading."

Leonard S. Rubenstein, executive director of the group Physicians for Human Rights, said the psychologists had fooled themselves into thinking their continued presence at detention facilities would make a difference when they were actually playing only a support role.

"It is unfortunate the APA did not recognize you cannot practice ethical psychology in interrogation settings in the context of pervasive violation of human rights," he said.

Comments

[damnedyankee]

Statement: "We prefer to work within the system to effect change."

Translation: "We're going to make some noises for PR purposes while sitting on our thumbs."

The Serious Professionals of the APA.

[Jon H]

It's clear a significant portion of the APA was raised by wire mesh monkeys.

[cjmr's husband]

Jon H wins the thread. That didn't take long.

/I miss my wire mesh monkey :-(

[Jeff]

Off Topic:

Racism is alive and well (OR, Christian terrorist, for aunursa):

Nooses were hung over the "white tree" in Jena, Louisiana when black students sat under it. Nothing was done to the noose-hangers. As racial tensions mounted, nothing was done to those who assaulted the black teens. But when a scuffle broke out and a white teen was hurt (he had a slight concussion and a black eye), 6 black teens were charged with attempted murder.

WaPo coverage is here.

A place to contribute to the defense is here.

This is just plain disgusting.

[beckya57]

I'm a clinical psychologist, and I quit APA in disgust years ago. It's become a microcosm of our dysfunctional politics: the leadership prizes its connections with the political establishment, and seeks to hold on to these despite the opposition of most of the membership. Psychologists as a profession are generally quite liberal, but the APA Council is basically indistinguishable from any other K street group (and yes, their office is on K street).

[Retrogrouch]

During the debate at the APA, the US Army admitted it was torturing innocent people:

The AP reporter botched a critical quotation:

"If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die," said Army Col. Larry James, who serves as a psychologist at Guantanamo Bay.

I know Laurie Wagner, who was sitting next to James when he said this. She reports he said:

"If we remove psychologists from these facilities, INNOCENT people are going to die,"

When Wagner pressed JAmes on what he meant by innocent people, he replied "DETAINEES."

James admitted the US is torturing INNOCENT people nearly to death.

Quite shocking.

[Jesurgislac]

I wonder if this is Chinese? I see it just as a series of ?????. (That's the spam which hopefully Fred will delete when he looks at the blog.)

[cjmr]

Yep, it's Chinese.

[Vince]

This is not not working within the system for change, it is working within the system to preserve the status quo. DamnedYankee's translation is correct in this instance, but it is generally easier and more productive to genreate change from within. That is, of course, assuming there is a will for change, which is what is lacking here in the APA's stance.

[cjmr's husband]

Well, it WAS chinese. Funny thing is, I read it half an hour ago, and now I want more!