Daily Kos

Psychologist "Swat Team" Serves Bush's Torture Gulag

Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:53:13 PM PDT

Dr. Alan E. Kazdin, current president of the American Psychological Association, in a new column in the APA Monitor, brags that APA lobbyists are a vertable "swat team" in support of government dollars for scientific research. Much of that money funds the work of psychologists "in support of homeland security after 9/11", "psychological research within the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense", and the "special relevance of psychological science on... counter-terrorism" research, among other items.

It is surely cosmic irony that places Dr. Kazdin's article in contrast to new revelations from the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. government documenting "the role of psychologists in military interrogations."

"The documents reveal that psychologists and medical personnel played a key role in sustaining prisoner abuse — a clear violation of their ethical and legal obligations," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "The documents only underscore the need for an independent investigation into responsibility for the systemic abuse of detainees held in U.S. custody abroad."

In 2006, the ACLU received a highly redacted version of the Church Report, which was commissioned by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a comprehensive review of military interrogation operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay based on 187 investigations into detainee abuse that had been closed as of September 30, 2004. The report did not analyze information relating to 130 abuse cases that remained open as of that date, and issues of senior official responsibility for detainee abuse were beyond its mandate. Written by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, the report skirts the question of command responsibility for detainee abuse, euphemistically labeling official failure to issue interrogation guidelines for Iraq and Afghanistan as a "missed opportunity."

The report states that "analogous to the BSCT in Guantanamo Bay, the Army has a number of psychologists in operational positions (in both Afghanistan and Iraq), mostly within Special Operations, where they provide direct support to military operations. They do not function as mental health providers, and one of their core missions is to support interrogations."

The documents also demonstrate the failure of medical personnel to report abuses upon those ostensibly under their care. Moreover, when it comes to the use of torture techniques, such as forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs, and other illegal forms of "interrogation" or incarceration, there was a decided policy of ignoring even the flimsy legal justifications and prohibitions issuing from the Department of Defense:

"The unredacted sections of the report provide new evidence confirming the use of abusive interrogation techniques after they were no longer authorized. According to the report, "the use of some of the techniques... continued even until July 2004, despite the fact that many were retracted by the October 2003 memorandum, and some were subsequently prohibited by the May 2004 memorandum."

As psychologists are implicated in the worst sort of human rights abuses at Guantanamo and elsewhere, Dr. Kazin, who is the John M. Musser Professor of Psychology, Child Psychiatry, and Institute of Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, positively gushes over the "APA... dream team of experts that is nimble and can move into action as needed with Congress, funding agencies and other organizations."

Kazin's organization, the APA, took five years to make a detailed statement against torture techniques that were documented at U.S. prisons, including Guantanamo, although even then the APA mimicked Bush administration language in saying that only psychologists who "knowingly" inflicted harm are to be sanctioned. This makes judging the intent of a torturer supposedly a crucial question. This doctrine of "specific intent" was written into the infamous Bybee memo, and represents a get out of jail free card for those who torture. (See John Mikhail's excellent discussion of the implications of that little word, "knowingly," over at the Georgetown Law Faculty Blog.)

APA Springs into Action for... Defense Funding

Despite all protestations of good faith by APA, psychologists still staff the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams at Guantanamo, and other interrogation sites, including, presumably, secret "black site" prisons run by the CIA. Psychologists at these sites are under the military chain of command, not APA ethics codes and committees. These sites are known to be in violation of Geneva Conventions and other national and international laws and agreements concerning prisoners, including the holding of detainees in indefinite detention, hiding detainees from the Red Cross, subjecting detainees to abusive conditions of detention, transferring via secret rendition some detainees to foreign prisons to be tortured, and subjecting prisoners to secret courts where hearsay evidence and evidence supplied via tortured confession is allowed.

In his article, Dr. Kazin brags how when the National Science Foundation threatened to defund some pet projects, "within approximately 12 hours, an APA swat team mobilized an effort that drew on targeted individuals, other organizations, congressional staff, grass-roots support from many psychologists, and more." Two hundred phone calls and many emails later, the bills were saved. And yet, to this day, the APA cannot find the time to pass a resolution or make a statement calling for the closure of Guantanamo prison, where basic human rights are not allowed, and a policy of isolation, sleep deprivation, fear, and a policy of indefinite detention remains in force. Show me where you put an organization's time and money, and I'll show you what that organization is really about. The APA is an obscentiy.

The newly unredacted Church report includes this statement about the role of psychologists, highlighting the use of psychologists throughout the different theaters in Bush's misnamed "war on terror":

Analogous to the BSCT in Guantanamo Bay, the Army has a number of psychologists in operational positions (in both Afghanistan and Iraq), mostly within Special Operations, where they provide direct support to military operations. They do not function as mental health providers, and one of their core missions is to support interrogations.

Supposedly, those working clinically with the disease and mental illness fostered by abusive treatment and conditions at U.S. prison sites do not share medical records with interrogators, but the report, while claiming that use of such information to "plan interrogations" doesn't take place, admits that such "sharing" has taken place:

According to the Director, Psychological Applications Directorate (US Army Special Operations Command), the only reason for sharing any medical information would be to ensure that detainees are treated in accordance with their medical requirements.

If you believe that, I've got a proverbial bridge to sell you. Meanwhile, the unredacted portions of the Church Report corroborate the findings of the Pentagon's own Office of the Inspector General report that exposed the existence of abusive techniques at Guantanamo, just at the time that APA honchos like Colonel Larry Banks (then Chief Psychologist for the Joint Intelligence Group at GTMO, Cuba) were in charge.

Alan Kazdin's article represents the mindset of the APA bureaucracy, which is dying to feed at the trough of "homeland security" and "counter-terrorism" millions drained from the public coffers to build up the power of the overtly militarist state that America has become. Show me where you put an organization's time and money, and I'll show you what that organization is really about. The APA is an obscenity.

Recently, APA dissident candidate for president, Dr. Steven Reisner, is campaigning on an overt call for an end to psychologist participation in military interrogations, such as at Guantanamo. While garnering a minority of votes, he still won a plurality in the first round of voting, demonstrating that rank-and-file psychologists are growing increasingly disgusted with the policy of their organization. A related group of APA dissidents are circulating a petition that "not work in settings where persons are held outside of, or in violation 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."

When I left the APA earlier this year, I specifically cited the overall stance of that organization in relation to the national security state. While the complicity with torture and human rights abuses is bad enough, the promise of further integration into "counter-terrorism" and "homeland security" programs of the government is an ominous foreshadowing of what the APA intends to become. If those looking to change APA are unsuccessful, they must ponder what they are doing in an organization so steadfastly dedicated to serving those that torture, that are obsessed with national security at a time when the government of this country engages in illegal, genocidal wars abroad, and seems incapable of reforming its own increasingly militarist and anti-democratic policies and actions.

Also posted at Invictus

Tags: ACLU, Alan Kazdin, American Psychological Association, Colonel Larry James, Guantanamo, Psychologists, Torture (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 33 comments

  •  Tip Jar (42+ / 0-)

    The damage to civil society by the thugs that run this country has been immense, turning ostensible professional organizations into handmaidens of torture and "antiterror" propaganda.

    This is the kind of complete moral bankruptcy that brought down Stalinsim.

    Our time is coming, God help us, unless we act as a society very soon to stop this terrible distortion of knowledge and the "helping" professions.

    War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

    by Valtin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:55:18 PM PDT

  •  Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath? n/t (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Avila, Valtin, shiobhan, Got a Grip
    •  They don't take one (5+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Trix, Kidspeak, Valtin, shiobhan, Got a Grip

      They're not MD's.

      Not that the oath seems to cut into MD's ability to administer torture or lethal injections, mind you...

    •  But (6+ / 0-)

      The "General Principles" of the APA Ethics Code states:

      Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

      Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes 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. Psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work.

      Notice how they built loopholes into these grand statements of "principles": psychologists "take care to do no harm." (My emphasis)

      No absolute statements the squirrelly apparatchiks of the APA Ethics Office

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ewan Cameron (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Valtin, shiobhan, testvet6778, Got a Grip

    beloved of malign psychologists and the Pentagon.

    Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.

    by ohcanada on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:13:11 PM PDT

  •  SALUTE you know how I feel about complicit (10+ / 0-)

    doctors of all stripes  medical and psychological

  •  This is not entirely new, folks (5+ / 0-)

    For decades, government agencies have been paying psychologists to write up whistleblowers as "paranoid" and, according to a psychologist who blew the whistle on that (Dr. Donald Soeken), many psychologists did not hesitate to rubber stamp the government's desired diagnosis in return for a convincing number of greenbacks. But, the U.S. news media, which readily covered similar stories in the Soviet Union, rarely reported on the abuses that occurred in this country. Then, the Bush administration came along, and the abuses evolved into outright torture.

    Lesson:  From 'little' abuses, bigger abuses grow in the absence of transparency and effective public oversight.

    •  You are absolutely right (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Kidspeak, vox humana, Deep Harm

      This has been going on for over 50 years now. Organized psychology and psychiatry (and other medical professions, such as neurology) were deeply implicated in formation of the CIA's torture/brainwashing/mind control programs of the 1950s/1960s, MKULTRA.

      No U.S. doctor, psychologist, or other medical professional has ever been charged, to my knowledge, in the crimes and unethical behavior to which many, many of them were party.

      The CIA did settle out of court re a lawsuit in the 1990s against them for the Cameron "research". But otherwise, no accountability.

      (Please remember, though readers, that most of the psychologists you meet in common practice have nothing to do with these procedures. Indeed, many of them are ignorant of their existence. Like other health professionals, their lives are spent in clinical work with patients. Most of the psychologists mentioned here were research psychologists.)

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most (all) of the research psychologists I know (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Valtin, vox humana, Got a Grip

        would never be party to this behavior.  This isn't a problem of "research psychologists".  This is a problem of health care "professionals" who have no moral compass.  But that's mostly a problem with them as human beings, not with their professional identity.

        •  Thank you for correcting my statement (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          PeterHug

          I only meant that most practicing health professionals are not involved in torture, but I fear the entire field will be destroyed by those within it that have followed the government's siren call.

          But, as the medical and psychological profession have not been able (or in some cases even willing) to stop this practice cold within their own discipline, I am losing hope even in my own peer group.

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:55:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It does seem like some sort of (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Valtin

            Gresham's Law wrt credibility is going to operate here.  And also with the United States' positions going forward on issues like human rights--if we don't somehow bring the people who have (i) done the actual dirty work, but more importantly (ii) created the intellectual, legal, and administrative framework for things like Guantanamo, we will never be able to speak on this issue again.

        •  I agree that's it's a "human being" problem (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          PeterHug, Valtin

          But, in the examples I cited, I would think it is also a professional problem because the profession doesn't discipline abusers (typically clinical psychologists and psychiatrists) who do dirty work for retaliating government officials.  Activists I know say the APA refused to take a public stand in opposition to the government.

  •  Valtin, I'm sorry your diaries (5+ / 0-)

    don't get whooshed up on the rec'd list. I read them here and at Docudharma, and you're a wonderful writer with a wealth of information to impart.
    Please keep telling us about the APA and it's nodding acceptance of torture for the 'cause' (the GWOT). I appreciate it. You do much good.

    Searching for corrupt, lobbyist loving John McCain?

    by Lisa Lockwood on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:53:37 PM PDT

    •  Thanks Lisa (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      srkp23, Lisa Lockwood, ohcanada

      Sometimes I do make a recomended list here, and Diary Rescue at Daily Kos has given many a diary of mine a second life.

      My hero, Charles Darwin, was fond of noting how persistent, slow progress can effect revolutionary changes over time.

      I wonder if he would say the same in the era of nuclear and biological/chemical weaponry.

      The failure to progress in nature is... extinction.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:57:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Diary rescue, and readers who subscribe. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Valtin, Lisa Lockwood

        Warmest thanks again, Valtin, for these unsconcionable dark truths.

        Among my acquaintances are many exceptional clinician APA members, among whom I believe only a small fraction can be familiar with the institution's position on torture, much less its willing complicity to pursue and avidly extend the reach of the basest sort of illegal activities.

        As it was for you, the APA is their mainstay professional organization. The massive scale of the group itself not only helps hide corruption, it makes it nearly impossible to identify and correct these poisonous situations.

        If Dr. Reisner's efforts cannot succeed, then what?

        •  Answer (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Creosote, Lisa Lockwood

          If Dr. Reisner's efforts cannot succeed, then what?

          There are those in APA who say if things don't turn around by the next convention/election, they will leave APA. My belief is that a decent showing by Reisner will invigorate the internal opposition, and who knows, he could win (though odds are probably against him). My analytical self says that the institutional apparaturs of the APA is already too entwined with the national security/military sectors of the government for real change to occur. What change will happen will be, despite the actions of those within APA to change things (and they should be applauded for that), because of larger changes in the body politic, which APA will tail.

          Back when the revelations about MKULTRA took place -- the era of the Church and Pike committees -- APA even had critical articles about psychologist participation in unethical experiments. Now, it's horatory rhetoric about the military, and no mention of the past. The APA has changed with the times, and like the times, not in a good way.

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:35:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You've analyzed the situation along lines (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Valtin

            similar to those I was considering. Reisner would have heavy sailing were he to come through strongly; the government must feel it has a right if not an obligation to control what it has bought. Much may depend on whether an effective investigation of the legality and pursuit of torture itself - and of those complicit in every step of this dark descent - can be carried out, and right now it's hard to have more than a faint hope of that.

            Otherwise, if those who are now the APA's conscience leave, seems like they'd need to then create a new major group to be able to contend, as a group, with APA. And that would be almost unprecedented.

    •  following the links.. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Valtin

      I came upon some declassified documents at George Washington University. According to the intro page,

      CIA interrogation manuals written in the 1960s and 1980s described "coercive techniques" such as those used to mistreat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to the declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive.

      At first glance, the material is quite creepy. I imagine that if one delves into it further, it becomes the stuff of nightmares.

      Capitulation We Can Believe In!

      by DFH on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:15:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are correct re "stuff of nightmares" (0+ / 0-)

        I've covered these documents in more in my writings the past few years. Peruse my diaries and you'll see reviews of this material, and more.

        War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

        by Valtin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I read with interest (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Valtin

    the September 25, 2006 Georgetown Law Faculty log posting "Common Article 3, Torture, and Specific Intent" which you cite above.

    The article points out that the Geneva Convention defines torture as

    any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession...

    but the US position is that

    in order to constitute torture, an act must be a deliberate and calculated act of an extremely cruel and inhuman nature, specifically intended to inflict excruciating and agonizing physical or mental pain or suffering...

    I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm missing something.  It seems to me that the only action that would clearly fit the US definition is an assault by a sadist for purposes of personal satisfaction, whereas the same assault by a dutiful citizen for military purposes would not qualify as 'torture'.

    •  Nice catch (0+ / 0-)

      You are absolutely correct that there is a lot of manipulation of definitions going on in the various Bush Administration "memos" and testimony regarding torture. The changes to the definitions, as to what constitutes "intention", "pain", "severe", etc. are at the heart of the legal strategy of the torturers in the government. This is why the U.S. Reservations to the UN Convention Against Torture specifically changed the definitions around "cruel, unusual, degrading treatment" to mirror definitions based in U.S. judicial precedent, which is based on a loose idea of what "shocks the conscience", rather than more stringent international criteria.

      I've been meaning to write something specifically aimed at just this point for some time. It's why I gave the link I did in the diary.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:46:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Haven't belonged for about 5 years now (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Valtin

    The APA in general seems to have a problem with actually understanding how to adhere to their own code of ethics.  The ethical code states that a psychologist should not practice outside his/her competencies, and yet they have attempted to advocate on behalf of ALL membership -- even the estimated 50% who oppose it, for RxP (prescription privileges).  It was this unwillingness to even entertain debate from those of us who are not interested in such things -- because of the perceived professional damage it would cause -- that led me to never sign up again.  Not because they were doing something I disagreed with per se, but rather because they stifled debate.

    Now this torture things comes out, and I am engaged in an active campaign to keep my students from joining APA unless they agree with this stated new role that we supposedly have in torture.  Most of them have not even heard about this and are horrified.

    I find it mindblowing that the discipline that gave us the Millgram experiment and the Stanford Experiment is too greedy and/or myopic to even be able to monitor their own behavior.  Supposedly psychologists are supposed to be better at monitoring themselves than the general public is.  It's a basic assumption that we use to be able to gain authority to provide treatment.  I think that this shows rather definitively what Scott Lilienfeld and others have been saying -- a doctorate in psychology doesn't necessarily provide a greater depth of knowledge or expertise, and that in many areas we are no better than paraprofessionals.  

    I think that's disgusting.  We have an ethical code we are supposed to follow and contorting around the constraints of that ethical code with simpering verbiage is shameful.  Denial, repression, supression -- everything except healthy communication and self-examination.

    I am embarrassed to still owe money for my doctorate because I no longer feel like my investment meant anything.  I no longer consider myself a psychologist.

Permalink | 33 comments