Then APA President Sharon Brehm: "No comment."
APA Director of the Ethics Office and APA point man on torture and interrogations: "No comment."
But one official did have a comment, which says everything one needs to knopw about the ethics of APA leadership:
"Dr. Matarazzo was president of APA 18 years ago," Rhea Farberman, the organization's director of public affairs, said in a prepared statement.
"Since that time, he has had no active role in APA governance but has been actively involved in the American Psychological Foundation (APF), the charitable giving arm of APA. Dr. Matarazzo currently holds no governance positions in either APA or APF," the statement said.
Matarazzo's "professional activities are outside and independent of any role he has played within APA and APF," the statement said. "We have no direct knowledge about the business dealing of Mitchell's and Jessen's company; however, APA's position is clear – torture or other forms of cruel or inhuman treatment are always unethical."
Notice the deep concern for Mitchell and Jessen's and, potentially, Matarazzo's, actions expressed in this statement. Notice the (missing) promise to investigate and, if confirmed, discipline this former APA President. After all, while "torture is unethical", this former President's "professional activities" are no concern of the APA.
Meanwhile, the Times article informs us that Mitchell & Jessen Associates is still in the CIA's good graces. Most likely they still have the torture contract. And as for the APA, they will most likely continue to forget about the firm's connection to them. Coincidentally, the morning before the new New York Times article appeared, a member of the APA's Board sent out to various listserv's an odd statement:
Colleagues,
I wanted to share the fact that APA is aware of the concerns that two Washington state psychologists were employed by the Department of Defense to reverse-engineer survival and resistance training (which is designed to help U.S. military personnel in the event they are captured) for use in interrogations. These two psychologists are not APA members so are out of the reach of the APA’s ethics enforcement process but, nevertheless, APA’s position on inappropriate interrogations techniques is very clear.
In August of 2007, the APA Council of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the use of 19 interrogation techniques because they were unethical, abusive and constituted torture. These condemned techniques included waterboarding, forced nakedness, sexual humiliation, stress positions and the use of dogs to intimidate.
In terms of active duty military psychologists being used as trainers of harsh interrogation techniques, the media reports that I have seen suggest this was not the case. Rather, these reports have singled out military psychologists as raising concerns about aggressive interrogation techniques including waterboarding, forced nakedness and sleep depravation.
Notice that this esteemed APA board member cannot distinguish between the Defense Department, the subject of last week's Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearings, and the CIA that employed Mitchell and Jessen. Notice too that she conveniently ignores former APA President Matarazzo's possible involvement in Mitchell and Jessens's activities and also ignores the fact that APA invited Mitchell and Jessen to the APA-CIA-Rand conference.
One also may wonder what "media reports" this Board member read which featured military psychologists protesting abuse as the main story. After all, the Associated Press began its first story on the SASC investigation by stating:
Military psychologists were enlisted to help develop more aggressive interrogation methods, including snarling dogs, forced nudity and long periods of standing, against terrorism suspects, according to a Senate investigation.
Further, SASC Chair Carl Levin described in his opening statement how:
