Psychologists Aiding Torturers

Michael Wessells

August 16, 2006

Michael Wessells is professor of Clinical Population and Family Health at Columbia University and professor of Psychology at Randolph-Macon College. He regularly advises various government and international agencies on child protection and psychosocial programs and policies, and he currently is co-chair of a United Nations interagency task force on mental health and psychosocial support during emergencies. His most recent book, Child Soldiers: From Violence to Protection, will be published by Harvard University Press in late 2006. Dr. Wessells resigned from the Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) because of the issue of torture.

At its annual convention last weekend, the American Psychological Association took a significant step toward respecting international human rights and reducing its support for the use of humiliating, abusive methods against detainees in the “war on terror.”

In a resolution adopted August 9 by its Council of Representatives, the APA unequivocally condemned any involvement by psychologists in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in any setting. The resolution reaffirmed the APA’s support ofArizona Sen. John McCain's anti-torture amendment and its adherence to United Nations human rights standards, particularly the Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment, as the basis for APA policy.

The APA’s action was a good first step, but it doesn’t go far enough. The resolution essentially says that its members should not be involved in helping to conduct torture, but are allowed to participate in national security interrogations, which have since 9/11 regularly involved cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, even allowing participation in “interrogations” is morally challenging for psychologists, just as it is for medical professionals.

The APA has been embattled recently over its policy of permitting psychologists to play an advisory role on behavioral science consultation teams, which guide the interrogation of detainees. This policy drew fire because of the horrendous violations of human rights at sites such as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and Bagram and the abuse of specific psychological methods, including sleep deprivation, stress positioning, exploitation of phobias, forced nakedness, sensory deprivation, religious degradation and isolation. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have banned their members from supporting interrogations processes, leaving many psychologists wondering why the American Psychological Association would not adopt a similar stance.

The APA’s vote last week fails to provide human rights protections because three key issues remain unaddressed: the lack of clear ethical guidance, ineffective systems for monitoring and reporting, and the illegal nature of the detainment environment itself. As a result, psychologists who work with military and intelligence agencies will continue to be put in a position of enabling, supporting, or allowing violations of detainee rights.

It is a significant departure from human rights standards to permit psychologists to work in settings that violate the Geneva Conventions. To be meaningful, human rights must be regarded as universal and can never be suspended, retracted, or circumvented. If human rights is to serve as the foundation of a professional code of ethics, the professional is obligated to actively assert those rights even when (or especially when) they conflict with national laws or a leader’s orders.

Significant gray areas exist regarding what counts as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In part, this ambiguity is due to the Bush administration’s efforts to redefine torture to include only the most severe abuses, Repeatedly the administration has authorized the use of methods widely regarded as abusive, cruel, or degrading but has claimed these do not constitute torture. Although the most brutal psychological methods, such as extreme sleep and sensory deprivations are now disallowed, the U. S. permits methods such as inversion of sleep cycles, which, if used repeatedly, causes sleep deprivation. Also permitted are exposure to extreme temperatures and isolation. If any one of these methods can have harmful effects, their combination has even greater abusive effect.

The current APA policy offers no operational guidance about the appropriateness of these methods, leaving psychologists to judge at each instance whether a particular treatment counts as a human rights violation. Psychologists are not trained to make such determinations, which in any case cannot be made well on the spot. To behave ethically in the security arena, psychologists need the backing of their professional association in the form of clear ethical guidance. Two years following the public outrage over the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the APA has still not provided such guidance. Although it has denounced the most heinous abuses that any reasonable person would regard as torture, these are not the primary methods being used. The so-called ‘torture lite’ methods—which psychologists know are damaging—are taking place underneath the radar and without repercussions. This situation constitutes a major failure of ethics guidance on the part of the world’s largest professional organization.

Further, human rights standards provide meaningful protection only when coupled with operational systems of monitoring, reporting and enforcement. So far, the APA has demonstrated a singular unwillingness to root out military and intelligence practices that enable abuse. Moreover, human rights standards become effective only if abuses are reported and acted upon. If abuses occur but go unreported or evoke no or mild punishment, a climate of impunity renders the standards meaningless.
 
Impunity is a major concern because the Bush administration is currently seeking to protect CIA officers and political appointees from the risk of prosecution for having violated the Geneva Conventions. Also, it was the Bush administration that determined the Geneva Conventions do not apply and deliberately ordered the use of abusive methods regarded by the international community as wanton violations of human rights. If psychologists doubted the ethical appropriateness of an interrogation method condoned by the military and president, what reason would they have for believing that blowing the whistle would be effective in stopping the practice?

Also, situational and systemic pressures in many national security settings make it very difficult for people concerned about human rights to act as whistleblowers. Up and down the command chain, strong pressures exist to deliver actionable intelligence. Dehumanizing images of detainees invite a drift toward mistreatment because detainees who are regarded as less than human seem undeserving of human rights or protection under the law. Prospective whistleblowers fear  loss of their jobs and retirement benefits, not to mention rejection by their peers and commanders. Most important, people in the military and national security establishment have been accustomed to submitting to military regulations, even if they contradict human rights standards. To make human rights standards useful in the current context, there must be robust protections for whistleblowers, strong incentives for reporting violations, and punishments for those who abuse rights. So far, the APA has done little to develop these protections, incentives and punishments.

Despite the Council of Representatives vote last week, psychologist involvement in questionable interrogations remains unresolved. In February members will have another attempt to amend the rules in order to better protect psychologists and detainees’ human rights.

Immediately, the APA should establish a moratorium on psychologists’ participation in any way in interrogations processes or in work at sites not protected by the Geneva Conventions and other human rights standards. A moratorium would allow the APA the time needed to delineate clear, operational guidance and develop appropriate methods of supporting whistleblowers and enabling effective monitoring, reporting and action in response to abuses. Because the job remains undone, the APA should take swift, decisive steps to protect human rights, limit abuses by psychologists and restore the moral legitimacy of the U. S.