MEDIA ROOTS – Several hundred psychologists, as well as numerous psychological associations around the
country, are united in calling for the annulment of the American Psychological
Association’s report on
Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). The 2005 report is an APA endorsement of the highly suspect intelligence-gathering
procedures used in US military detention sites such as Guantánamo Bay and
Bagram, Afghanistan. The demand for its immediate suspension and
public review is called not by the APA Board or Ethics Committee, but by its
general membership as well as several scholar-activists such as Daniel Ellsberg
and Noam Chomsky.
Flaws in the PENS process have been apparent from its inception. The creation of a presidential task force consisting of nine psychologists was specifically assigned to adopt the official psychological guidelines for interrogation by US intelligence agents. Unfortunately, the task force was composed primarily of psychologists already working within the military and intelligence communities, and many have been involved in instances of suspected prisoner abuse. Additionally, PENS was never offered for discussion among the APA membership, the press, or the general public, and it was approved in a highly suspect emergency vote that deviated from standard APA procedures.
The closing of Guantánamo Bay is on hold, and Bagram is expanding in size to incarcerate up to 5,500 suspected ‘terrorists’ by the end of 2012. Both detention sites do not offer detainees due process as outlined in the Constitution and violate international laws, such as those outlined in the Geneva Conventions. As these criminal gulags continue to operate unabated, psychologists worldwide are becoming increasingly aware that the APA was simply used as a promotional propaganda tool by the White House in order to justify its rendition and torture program.
MR
***
COALITION FOR AN ETHICAL PSYCHOLOGY – Over the decade since the horrendous attacks of 9/11, the world has been shocked by the specter of abusive interrogations and the torture of national security prisoners by agents of the United States government. While psychologists in the U.S. have made significant contributions to societal welfare on many fronts during this period, the profession tragically has also witnessed psychologists acting as planners, consultants, researchers, and overseers to these abusive interrogations at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, Bagram Air Base, CIA “black sites,” and elsewhere. Moreover, in the guise of keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical and effective,” psychologists were used to provide legal protection for otherwise illegal treatment of prisoners.
The American Psychological Association’s (APA) 2005 Report of the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (the PENS Report) is the defining document endorsing psychologists’ engagement in detainee interrogations. Despite evidence that psychologists were involved in abusive interrogations, the PENS Task Force concluded that psychologists play a critical role in keeping interrogations “safe, legal, ethical and effective.” With this stance, the APA, the largest association of psychologists worldwide, became the sole major professional healthcare organization to support practices contrary to the international human rights standards that ought to be the benchmark against which professional codes of ethics are judged.
Read more about the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology’s call for annulling the APA’s PENS Report.
© 2011 Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
***
Photo provided by Flickr user The National Guard.
It seems that it is not so easy for the president of the APA to meet the srdndatas of conservative dissenters within the ranks. Certainly one common liberal view is that whether or US troops in Iraq are brave or noble, their mission there is ultimately futile. Levant’s comments don’t seem to contradict that view, but that’s not good enough. It’s also not good enough that Levant deflects attention away from gun control in the case of Columbine in favor of psychological counseling — which I thought was also one of Helen Smith’s messages in the movie Six. On the contrary, Levant is still suspect because he still dwells on psychopathology in men, which is bad because it still leave feminists with a leg to stand on.I’ll admit that some of Levant’s message strikes me as psychobabble. But then, many psychologists make that impression on me, whether they are liberal or conservative. I think that it’s asking too much if you want people like Levant not just to nod to conservatism, but to confront and contradict liberalism at every turn. I don’t think that you can expect an APA president who sounds like Michelle Malkin.For that matter, when a pyschologist studies the psychology of any group – men or women or whoever – isn’t it natural to focus on psychopathology? I’m male (last I checked) and I don’t see anything wrong with it at all, but I would only expect to see a psychiatrist if I had a mental illness. The health of healthy people has its place in science, but it’s a little limited as an area of study.