|
|
Tags for This Article:
Torture (1180) Human Rights (728) Torture (606) Torture (361) Psychology (81) American Psychological Association (55)
|
Add to My Group
Of course, none of the above qualifications exist in the 2007 Resolution. So why does the qualification exist for techniques of isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation--techniques that we know can be quite painful and harmful even if just in the short term? Moreover, why is psychologist involvement in any abusive harm acceptable regardless of whether it reaches the level of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading or not? This qualification provides an immense loophole leading to the potential abuse of these techniques as long as they do not cause undefined “significant pain or suffering” or “lasting harm.” 6. Although the 2007 Resolution condemns conditions of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (e.g., water boarding, prolonged exposure to heat/cold, prolonged sleep deprivations, the use of non-therapeutic drugs, forced-feedings in violation of international law, etc.), these conditions may still legally exist at detention centers for individuals identified as “enemy combatants” under the Military Commission Act of 2006. However, according to the 2007 Resolution, as long as these techniques are used outside the immediate procedural context of a psychologist’s involvement, a psychologist can continue to work at such a settings in a non-health care capacity. Essentially, a person can be tortured “down the hall” in preparation for interrogations or as a condition of their confinement and, according to the 2007 Resolution, it is still acceptable for a psychologist to be involved either directly or indirectly in interrogations once the prisoner has been moved into an alternate setting. This form of compartmentalization and diffusion of responsibility has not withstood historical scrutiny in the past and I think fails in this context as well. 7. As noted above, prisoners can still be subjected to “harsh interrogation techniques” as discussed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and defined as torture by the International Red Cross and the United Nations, and psychologists can still participate in the operations of these settings but not in these specific interrogations. Unfortunately, psychologists’ presence at such sites provides tacit support for these “harsh” techniques, legal under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Although reporting is mandated when psychologists witness the use of abusive techniques, this reporting to superior officers is meaningless as the techniques have been approved and are considered legal. This is particularly relevant in relation to CIA interrogations. Therefore, although the 2007 Resolution is a rebuke of commonly cited CIA techniques, the Resolution unfortunately contains an inadvertent wink and a nod for their continued use. Protest carries little effect when logical consequent actions are not recommended. Ultimately, the 2007 Resolution maintains the status quo and prisoners will continue to experience torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment both as a function of perpetrator behavior and as a function of context. It is indeed a sad day for psychologists, a sadder day for human rights, and a day of despair for detainees. Much like those historically who found themselves in similar situations of human rights abuses, psychologists working at Guantanamo Bay, previously at Abu Ghraib, or other detention sites will be forever marked simply by association with these abusive contexts regardless of their individual actions. Psychologist continued involvement in interrogations at these settings will be perceived as and, more importantly I fear, will have functioned as support for these inherently destructive environments. Certainly, the American Psychological Association and the psychology profession has become historically linked to atrocity and images of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and the CIA sites. Rhea Farberman argued that we have chosen to “stay at the table.” However, I think our presence at that table has come with a price, a stain, and significant shame. Personal Statement of Involvement and Concerns about the Process In 2006, I was one of the primary drafters of the APA Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and in 2007, I was one of the early members of the group drafting amendments to the Board of Directors Substitute Motion, which resulted in the 2007 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.” I withdrew my participation from the working group drafting the amendments to the Substitute Motion on Thursday of the Convention due to issues of conscience. In the weeks prior to the Convention, the Board of Director’s sent to Council a Substitute Motion that represented, as written, a roll-back of some of the principles outlined in the 2006 Resolution. I do not think this was the intention of those drafting the Substitute Motion but rather the outcome of a hastily drafted document–a proposed alternate motion to a Moratorium Resolution already before Council. Many individuals responded to the Substitute Motion with statements of concern and suggestions for amendments. Moreover, individuals expressed the belief that for the Substitute Motion to genuinely be proffered as an alternative motion, these amendments needed to include a call for a limitation on psychologist involvement in interrogations(a). Work on the amendments began online and then several constituencies came together for intensive meetings during the Convention to work further on the wording of the amendments to the Substitute Motion. Immediately, I became concerned regarding what I perceived to be a pattern of groupthink. There was intense pressure to reach agreement and come out of the meetings with a Resolution that could be taken to Council representing a unified or “collaborative” effort. I originally felt compelled to work on the amendments as I did not want to see the Association move backward and hoped for forward movement representing the principles outlined in the 2006 Resolution. However, it quickly became clear that the goal of a unified draft seemed to take precedence over other concerns and the time crunch precluded extensive, careful consideration of wording, issues of international law, and broader human rights concerns. Moreover, it was clear that any statement involving limitations to psychologist involvement(a) at Guantanamo Bay and similar detention sites for “enemy combatants” was being actively discouraged and marginalized. Indeed, the way in which the potential clause concerning limitations was presented to Council encouraged its marginalization and it was subsequently voted down after a short period of discussion. The time issues both during and prior to the Council meeting and the manner in which Substitute Motion was presented to Council facilitated maintenance of the status quo in relation to psychologist involvement in interrogations at sites such as Guantanamo Bay and the CIA sites. I decided after my first two meetings with those working on the amendments to withdraw my participation. I began to perceive my participation as not “collaborative” in the sense of working together towards a positive goal but rather “collaboration” in the sense of unwitting assistance in destructive endeavors. Therefore, I wrote Dr. Stephen Behnke and others working on the Substitute Motion on the evening of August 16, “I’ve given a great deal of thought to the issue of my involvement with the working group drafting the amendments to the Board of Directors Substitute Motion. At this point, I feel as if I can no longer continue to be involved in this process as a matter of conscience. Moreover, I do not want my further presence in these deliberations to be viewed as support for the changes being drafted as discussed at lunch. I recognize that there are many views on the issue of interrogations of individuals defined under the Military Commissions Act as “illegal enemy combatants” and “enemy combatants.” I also recognize the good faith effort, sincerity, and deep commitment of all within the APA struggling with these issues. Nonetheless, I deeply value fundamental human rights both in practice and in principle. These human rights guidelines shape my professional work and thinking. As such and with these human rights principles in mind, I can no longer participate in the process of revising the amendments to the Board of Directors Substitute Motion. The revisions being recommended deeply conflict with my personal ethics and values.” More Information Psychologists concerned about the 2007 Resolution or who want to see the proposed amendment added into the Resolution during a future Council meeting should contact their APA Council Representative or members of the Board of Directors: http://cor.apa.org/corlist.cfm For information about the 2006 Resolution, go to http://www.peacepsych.org. Scroll down the right hand side of the page Torture and Terrorism Resources. The 2007 Resolution can be found at http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html . PDF copy available at http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ASadDayforPsychologists.pdf Contact Information:
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
