Vote Against Torture Collusion:
Psychologists Vote on Referendum Against Participating in Bush
Regime Detention Centers
By Stephen Soldz
11/08/08 "ICH"
-- --
The American Psychological Association has been racked with
controversy over the role of psychologists in Bush regime
detainee interrogations. Unlike other health professions, which
have determined that participation in the interrogations is
unethical, the APA leadership has defended psychologists’
involvement in interrogations at Guantanamo and the CIA "black
sites." Psychologist opponents of the APA position have, for the
first time in APA history, organized a referendum to change APA
policy. They ask the APA membership to reject psychologists’
participation when such sites are in violation of international
law or the Constitution. The ballots are currently arriving in
members mailboxes.
After reviewing the disturbing background of psychologists
crucial role in U.S. torture and detainee abuse, the
referendum's crucial clause states:
Be it resolved that psychologists may not work in settings where
persons are held outside of, or in isolation of, either
International law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and
the Geneva Conventions) or the US Constitution (where
appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons
being detained or for an independent third party working to
protect human rights.
Jean Maria Arrigo, the psychologist who served on the APA’s PENS
[Psychological Ethics and National Security] task force in 2005
and exposed the PENS report as a rubber stamp for an already
determined government policy, has succinctly explained the
importance of a “Yes” vote on the referendum:
The ballot arrived today from APA, and I just voted Yes on the
Referendum. To my mind, the timeliness of the Referendum as
social action supersedes the problem of misinterpretation of the
text.
My thinking on this matter has been most strongly influenced by
military and intelligence personnel I know, including senior
interrogators.
At an emotional level, I was much affected by audience responses
to my February presentations to anti-torture symposia at two
universities in Sao Paulo and the regional psychological
association. Audiences were outraged by the APA endorsement of
psychologists at military interrogation centers (people standing
up and shouting) and truly horrified that I had agreed to the
PENS report. (In Brazil, the word “interrogation” is virtually
synonymous with “torture.”) If the APA leadership accommodates
current government policy on interrogations, well, Brazilian
psychologists can understand…, but if the APA membership defeats
the Referendum, at this point in our history, that sends a bad
message I cannot explain away. They are worried about the
passivity of the APA legitimizing torture by our government,
which legitimizes torture by their government and delegitimizes
their own protests as psychologists.
Respectfully,
Jean Maria Arrigo
In response to the referendum, the APA has launched a strong
effort to convince members that they should not support this
"well-intended" referendum because it would restrict the ability
of psychologists to work in domestic prisons and mental
hospitals. Although legally informed psychologists have opined
that any such risk is extremely far fetched, the referendum
authors have issued a clarifying statement that would put these
concerns to rest for those sincerely concerned about the
domestic application of the referendum:
This referendum is focused on settings such as Guantánamo Bay
and the CIA ‘black sites’ set up by the U.S. as part of its
‘global war on terror’; settings where the persons being
detained are denied the protections of either constitutional or
international law, settings which have been denounced by the
United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the International
Committee of the Red Cross.
We are well aware of the harms and legal struggles facing
certain prisons and jails inside the domestic U.S. criminal
justice system. However, the referendum takes no position on
such settings where prisoners have full access to independent
counsel and constitutional protections; nor does the referendum
take a position on settings that now exist within the domestic
mental health system where clients and patients also possess
these basic rights.
The campaign of confusion has, however, only intensified since
this clarification was issued.
Psychologist and attorney Bryant Welch, who founded the
organization's Practice Directorate and then served as its
Executive Director for eight years, has himself penned a piece
explaining what is at stake in this referendum [included here
with permission]:
Vote to End the Shame APA has Inflicted on all Psychologists
By Bryant L. Welch, J.D., Ph.D.
In the eyes of the world psychologists are being seen as aiders
and abettors of torture. The damage to the profession grows day
by day, and the shamefulness of it reflects on all of us,
whether we like it or not.
This is the third consecutive annual convention in which APA has
presented new reasons for refusing to explicitly state that
psychologists are not to participate in detention centers where
torture is being used. In 2006 we were told, among many things,
that torture was not occurring, and that it was sufficient for
APA to reiterate its 1986 resolution “opposing torture.” Last
year we were told that psychologists’ presence at the detention
centers was actually necessary to prevent the torture whose very
existence these same APA officials denied the previous year.
Bizarrely, APA outlawed nineteen specific forms of torture, as
if in some way the large number of proscribed techniques would
cripple torture efforts.
As a result, for the first time in APA history, APA rank and
file members have secured the necessary signatures to petition
the APA and force APA to submit the torture issue to a
referendum by the membership.
Persisting in its support for psychologists’ participation in
Bush detention centers and appearing insensitive to the moral
concerns of its members, APA leaders are now advising APA
members to oppose the referendum because the language of the
referendum might be interpreted to preclude psychologists
working in certain institutional settings. This argument is
based on scenarios that are extremely far fetched and could
readily be addressed even were they to occur. To the public, of
course, the message would be that psychologists are not willing
to stop torture now if there is even a remote risk of losing
jobs in the future.
Since the Bush Administration will be out of office by the next
time APA meets, this will be the last opportunity psychologists
will have to remove this terrible stain from our reputation and
our history
Torture is not a nuanced issue.
Vote No to torture. Vote YES on the referendum.
For more information see Torture, Political Manipulation and the
American Psychological Association.
[Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist and
licensed attorney. In 1985 he proposed and developed the APA
Practice Directorate which he ran from 1985-93. He is the author
of State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on
the American Mind. He can be reached directly at welchfirm@aol.com.]
Several nationally prominent and respected organizations which
have long been active in the anti-torture struggle have spoken
out in support of the referendum. The Torture Abolition and
Survivors Support Coalition International has issued this
statement in support:
The Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition
International (TASSC) is an organization each of whose members
is a survivor of torture. Our mission is two-fold: to support
torture survivors in any way we can and to oppose torture
wherever it may be practiced.
We understand the petition submitted by Ethical APA
Psychologists to be entirely consistent with this mission. That
such a petition is necessary seems, at the very least,
distressing but since it is, we express our support for it and
thank psychologists for this action.
In solidarity,
Harold Nelson
Advocacy Coordinator
Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International
(TASSC)
www.tassc.org
School of the Americas Watch also has expressed support for the
referendum:
We at School of the Americas Watch are all too familiar with the
practice of institutional secrecy in which torture and brutality
thrives. We therefore recognize and support the vital role that
Psychologists for Social Responsibility and Psychologists for an
Ethical APA have played in the fight to end torture and other
human rights abuses.
We further support Psychologists for an Ethical APA's petition
and referendum with the American Psychological Association (APA).
We urge the American Psychological Association to put an end to
the unhealthy relationship between psychology and the torture by
removing all APA psychologists from the secret detention centers
where torture and cruelty prevail. We stand in solidarity with
all of those psychologists who are working to advance human
rights throughout the world and who support survivors of
torture.
Mike Baney
Operations and Development Coordinator
School of the Americas Watch, Washington, DC
www.soaw.org
TASSC and School of the Americas Watch understand all too
clearly what is at stake here. Let's hope that, despite the
campaign of confusion and fear, the members of the APA grasp
this opportunity to heed the words of Drs. Welch and Arrigo and
vote for this referendum. This would send a strong message to
those in the forefront of the anti-torture struggle – like TASSC
and School of the Americas Watch – that psychologists will no
longer give their tacit or active consent to torture and other
detainee abuse. Neither the profession nor the country can
afford to miss this opportunity to issue a rebuke to the Bush
administration and to those in our profession who have abetted
it. As Dr. Welch states: "Vote No to torture. Vote YES on the
referendum."
Stephen Soldz is Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and
Program Development. Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis
Click
on "comments" below to read or post
comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be
succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage
engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do
not include personal information such as names,
addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines – those
including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you have
concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send
Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
