The American Psychological Association (APA) issued the following press release on 10 August 2006.

New Orleans - The Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association (APA) has approved a resolution reaffirming the organization's absolute opposition to all forms of torture and abuse, regardless of the circumstance. The resolution furthermore affirmed United Nations human rights documents and conventions as the basis for APA policy.

[...]

"It is not enough for us to express outrage or to codify acceptable practices. As psychologists, we must use every means at our disposal to prevent abuse and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment," said Gerald P. Koocher, PhD, President of the APA.

Quite a contrast from Dr. Koocher's "dead wrong" on torture response six weeks ago to a petition by members of the APA which called for an unequivocal end to psychologists' participation in detainee interrogations.

Guantanamo Psychologists v. Psychiatrists

Psychiatrists took a stand against being used for prisoner interrogations early on in the GWoT.  The American Medical Association, Physicians For Human Rights and Amnesty International were three of many organizations who supported the anti-torture and anti-witness policy of the psychiatrists.

"No psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of persons held in custody by military or civilian investigative or law enforcement authorities, whether in the United States or elsewhere. Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees."

For years, the varied mental health professions in the United States have been fighting turf wars. Psychiatrists tried to keep psychologists from being able to conduct therapy or, more recently, from prescribing psychotropic medications. Psychologists fought for rights to conduct these treatments. Psychologists, in turn, fought the attempts of their Masters-level colleagues for professional recognition. Social workers, mental health counselors, and psychoanalysts each fight for recognition against opposition from others.

When the psychiatrists stood in solidarity and (in effect) said: "No.  We will not torture.  We will not witness human rights violations without reporting every incident.  And no, we will not falsify or hide medical records, Mr. Rumsfeld" . . . . . . the psychologists and the APA became necessary to the Waterboard Administration.

The June 7, 2006 New York Times brings news that the United States Department of Defense has decided to give preference to using psychologists over psychiatrists as advisers to its interrogation teams at Guantánamo and other unnamed locations based on "a recognition of differing  positions taken by their respective professional groups."

More specifically, The American Psychiatric Association unequivocally has adopted a policy stating that its members should not be part of these interrogation teams.

The American Psychological Association has adopted a far weaker policy that, in practice, puts no constraints upon its members participating in interrogation, stating only that members consulting on national security interrogations should be "mindful of factors unique to these roles  and contexts that require special ethical consideration." This position is taken in spite of considerable pressure from many members desiring the Association to state unequivocally that members should not participate in these interrogation teams in any capacity.

The psychologists fought back by assembling a Task Force and by withholding their member dues.

This Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security included members of the Peace Psychology division of the Association, but it also included psychologists engaged in national security and military activities. (One source claims that four members, out of about eight, were connected to the military. Another source believe a smaller number of members had military or national security connections. A third source, a published article by an Association Division President, states that 6 of 10 members "had ties to the Department of Defense."

The nature of this involvement of psychologists and psychiatrists has been documented in several sources.

Notably, it was not denounced by APA President Gerald Koocher.

Within days, an email campaign to the Association's President Koocher was launched and 300 emails were sent in 48 hours. Koocher responded with derision and condescension, while explicitly endorsing psychologists' duty to aid the National Security State. One version of the letter he sent:

"You are dead wrong.

"The APA Board of Directors understands and appreciates that its members have strong opinions about psychologists' involvement in interrogations,  and that their opinions are not uniform. Please recognize that interrogation does not equate to torture and that many civilian and military contexts exist in which psychologists ethically participate in information gathering in the public interest without harming anyone or violating our ethical code. Please also examine press reports with healthy skepticism and seek facts, rather than reflexively engaging in letter-writing campaigns predicated on inadequate access to the data."

In a display of stunning compassion, Koocher's "dead wrong" email was sent three days after the June suicides of three Guantanamo detainees.

The psychologists refused to back down. One month after assuming office, President Koocher devoted his monthly Presidential column in the Association's APA Monitor to defending the organization and its refusal to do anything in response to the horrors well-documented as occurring at Guantánamo.

In Orwellian fashion, he entitled his defense of inaction in the face of barbarity: "Speaking against torture." In this column he attacked Association critics while trying to change the subject:

"A number of opportunistic commentators  masquerading as scholars have continued to report on alleged abuses by mental health professionals. However, when solicited in person to provide APA with names and circumstances in support of such claims, no data have been forthcoming from these same critics and no APA members have been linked to unprofessional behaviors. The traditional journalistic dictum of reporting who, what, where and when seems notably absent."

In a recent debate with critics, Koocher utilized yet another defense that seems destined for greater use now that pressure is growing on the Association to act. He made a distinction between those psychologists providing health services to detainees, who, he claimed, were forbidden from using information thus gained to aid interrogators, and those behavioral scientist consultants who are not there to tend to detainees and are therefore free to aid interrogation.

However, even Koocher had to admit that all psychologists are bound by the principle of "do no harm." He, of course, failed to explain how participation in the workings of an institution designed to destroy the personalities of those incarcerated there could ever meet the "do no harm" principle."

APA member Stephen Solds concluded his petition thusly.

Given the close ties between the psychological Association and the military, it clear Association that will not be changed easily. Change will require extended pressure, using a wide range of tools, in order to impact such a deep seated policy. It remains to be seen if the activist members will be able to maintain the energy and passion aroused by recent news and events, or whether they will again lapse into that state of "learned helplessness" that Association behavior appears designed to induce.

Further, as is documented in an official U.S. Southern Command policy statement, health professionals, including psychologists and psychiatrists working at Guantánamo, were for a while explicitly instructed to violate commonly-accepted canons of confidentiality and concern for patients' welfare that date back eons.

We psychologists wish to unequivocally state our rejection of participation by psychologists in the interrogation process at Guantánamo or similar, still secret, facilities.  

We will not stand by and remain silent while our profession throws overboard its concern for human dignity by becoming complicit in inhumane institutions.

"Well, this government's definition of what's a legal interrogation is infinitely elastic and so that this is not a profound barrier to psychologists, and it doesn't surprise me that the military will shift over to working with psychologists. In fact, they screen the docs before they go down to Guantanamo to make sure they have no moral objections to force-feeding and then they take the docs who don't have an objection to force-feeding, and those are the docs who get to go to Guantanamo."

--Dr. Steven Miles, medical ethicist, in Oath Betrayed

Salon revealed that six of the 10 psychologists that APA president Gerald Koocher helped select to draft the ethics report had close ties to the military, including four who'd been involved with the handling of detainees at Guanténamo or Abu Ghraib, or who'd served in Afghanistan. That revelation, subsequently reported by the Associated Press, further incensed some members of the association, said Steven Reisner, a psychologist critical of the current interrogation policy. "It generated a lot of energy in my circles," he said, adding that an online petition against the interrogation principles has netted more than 1,400 signatures from members and other psychologists.

Read Dr. Koocher's disgusting email response from June (6-7 weeks ago) to Dr. Soldz about torture here.

Thanks to Dr. Steve Miles, Dr. Soldz and the mental health professionals who took a stand for human rights and dignity.

Big hat tip to Shirah.

• torture