4. Included the principle that settings could be defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading.
5. Included the fundamental principle of denial of due process in as a primary characteristic in defining a setting as cruel, inhuman, or degrading.
6. Argued that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including instances of war or following orders.
There are numerous other elements (go to http://www.peacepsych.org for the full text of the 2006 Resolution, justification statement, and FAQ page - scroll down the right hand side of the page) but this list represents some of the major features.
The 2007 Reaffirmation Resolution simply repeats all of the above but within the context of interrogations of individuals defined as “enemy combatants” and “illegal enemy combatants” under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There is much that is good in the 2007 Reaffirmation largely due to the efforts of those who worked tirelessly at the 11th hour in an attempt to insure that this new Resolution didn’t take a step backwards in relation to human rights. I have deep respect for those who worked to hold the 2007 Resolution to the principles inherent in the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Unfortunately, the last-minute proposal of a deeply flawed Substitute Motion and the resultant process by which that Substitute Motion was revised almost insured that ANY 2007 Resolution would be more press release than substance; it would maintain the status quo. And indeed, this was the outcome.
The 2007 Resolution - Specific Concerns
It is important to recognize that the 2007 Resolution makes some excellent points such as the statement, “BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention.” Moreover, the 2007 Resolution reiterates important points from the 2006 Resolution such as, “there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification for torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the invocation of laws, regulations, or orders.” Additionally, the 2007 Resolution reaffirms that contexts can be defined as cruel, inhuman, and degrading and highlights the importance of international documents such as the Geneva Conventions.
Regardless, there are several serious problems with the 2007 Resolution and hence, the APA’s position regarding interrogations of prisoners detained by the CIA, the U.S. Government, or the U.S. military at sites such as Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. These problems include:
1. Prisoners may live in conditions defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading BUT psychologists can continue to work in such settings in non-health care capacities (e.g. interrogations). The settings meet the definition of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” under both the 2006 and 2007 Resolutions. Yet, psychologist involvement in maintaining these settings and conditions as well as working within cruel, inhuman, or degrading contexts in a non-health care related capacity is nonetheless still viewed as acceptable.
2. Prisoners can be denied due process as defined under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, psychologist involvement in maintaining these settings and conditions as well as working within contexts in a non-health care related capacity is nonetheless still viewed as acceptable, despite prisoners’ lack of due process as defined under both domestic and international law.
3. Prisoners can be detained indefinitely at sites of detention for “enemy combatants.” According to the 2006 United Nations Human Rights Council, “uncertainty about the length of detention and prolonged solitary confinement, amount to inhuman treatment and to a violation of the right to health as well as a violation of the right of detainees under article 10, paragraph 1, of ICCPR to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person” (p. 24). Yet, psychologist involvement in maintaining these settings and conditions as well as working within these inhumane contexts in a non-health care related capacity is nonetheless still viewed as acceptable.
4. Although the 2007 Resolution listing of prohibited abusive techniques is qualified by the statement, “includes, but is by no means limited to”, any listing carries the risk of being viewed as a primary guide concerning acceptable versus prohibited behaviors. Therefore, harsh interrogation techniques not on the lengthy list may be perceived as causing insufficient harm to qualify as torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This opens the door to psychologist involvement in abusive interrogations via a process of ambiguity. This is further compounded when psychologists are asked to be involved in interrogation techniques legally defined as “harsh” but not “torture.” The Military Commissions Act of 2006 opened the door to such a possibility through the authorization of non-specified harsh interrogation techniques.
5. Although qualifiers are not placed on most of the techniques listed in the 2007 Resolution, some techniques such as isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation include the following qualification “used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.” At what point does harm become acceptable or unacceptable? And why are there no similar qualifiers for other techniques resulting in prohibitions such as:
“Sexual humiliation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.”
“The use of dogs to threaten or intimidate used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.”
“Physical assault including slapping or shaking used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm.”
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
