I am sending this along from Donna Bassin, a friend who practices clinical psychology. Read, heed, and distribute widely. -SG

We, the members of Section IX of Division 39 of the American Psychological
Association (APA), hereby (1) declare our unequivocal opposition to any
involvement of psychologists in interrogations in detention centers that
violate U.S. and/or international law; condemn the involvement of
psychologists in torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of
detainees, including such actions that may be disguised under the euphemism
of “enhanced or harsh interrogation” techniques, (2) express our serious
concern about individual and systemic factors that may have contributed to
any such involvement, and (3) demand corrective action as outlined below to
hold all relevant parties accountable and reduce the likelihood of any such
involvement by psychologists in the future.

Recently declassified Department of Defense and Inspector General documents
have provided evidence of psychologists’ involvement in the design,
implementation, justification, and/or concealment of torture and cruel,
inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees. This evidence directly
contradicts the often repeated APA claim that psychologists have been in
Guantanamo and other detention sites to keep the interrogations “safe,
ethical, and legal.” The abundance of evidence suggests that psychologists
have participated in actions at these sites that are clearly in violation of
the principles of common article 3 of the Geneva Convention, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations
Convention Against Torture, and the several provisions of the APA Ethics
Code including the Principle of Beneficence and Nonmalficence [1], the Principle of Justice [2], the Principle of Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity[3].

We therefore demand that the APA do the following without delay:

1. Establish and finance an independent, nonpartisan commission to
investigate fully the role of psychologists and their subordinates in the design, use,
supervision, and justification of torture and cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment of
detainees otherwise referred to has “enhanced or harsh interrogation” techniques; and
whether the American Psychological Association knowingly cooperated with
the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, or other federal
agencies in the implementation and/or concealment of any of the above.

2. Make an immediate, complete, and public declaration of any information
the organization possesses regarding the role of psychologists or
psychological associations in the design, implementation, justification,
and/or concealment of torture or abusive treatment of prisoners. Such
information should be provided to the membership of APA, the State licensing
boards of any individual psychologists named in the declaration who may have
been involved in such actions, and to federal law enforcement authorities,
so that appropriate legal and ethical judgments can be made. If APA asserts
that no such information is available, they should make public all the
complaints they have received and dismissed or refused to act on. Upon
receipt of such information, the State licensing boards and federal law
enforcement authorities should conduct their own independent investigation
of whether the psychologists’ actions constitute ethical and/or legal
violations.

3. Make public the steps APA has taken or is taking to discover what role,
if any, psychologists and psychological associations have played in the
design, implementation, justification, and/or concealment of torture or
cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees.

4. Immediately retract the 2002 revision of Section 1.02 of the APA Ethics
Code, which is inconsistent with its broader principles, specifically, the
second sentence of the following passage: “If psychologists’ ethical
responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal
authority, psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and
take steps to resolve the conflict. If the conflict is unresolvable via such
means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations,
or other governing legal authority.”

5. Rescind the PENS report due to the fact that six of the nine voting
members of The APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and
National Security (PENS) were receiving income from the Department of
Defense at the time of their service on the task force.. A new, independent
task force should be assembled to determine APA’s policy on interrogations;
this process should include an open forum, including full discussion of the
issues by the APA membership.

_____________

[1] “Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care
to do no harm… Because psychologists’ scientific and professional judgments
and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard
against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors
that might lead to misuse of their influence”

[2] “Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to
ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and
the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust
practices”

[3] “Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to
protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose
vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making”