Q: Who can sign? A: APA members in good standing. This includes members, dues exempt members and fellows.
Q. Who cannot sign? A: Unfortunately, associate members and APA affiliates cannot sign. This includes: students, high school teachers, 2-year college professors, and international affiliates.
Q: I am not a US citizen, can I still sign this petition? A: Yes, as long as you joined the APA as a full member and not as an international affiliate.
Q: How can I find my APA membership number? A: Your membership number is an 8-digit number that appears on most official correspondence such as your billing statement. You can also call the APA membership office at (800) 374-2721 (US & Canada Toll Free) or (202) 336-5580 (in DC) and ask for your membership number. Additionally, you can look up your number on the APA portal http://my.apa.org if you have previously registered.
Q: Why are you calling for psychologists to leave detention centers such as Guantanamo, similar settings in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the CIA black sites? A: We have three overarching reasons for wanting psychologists out of these sites:
Our first ethical principle as psychologists is to “do no harm.” We know from multiple credible sources that psychologists have designed and participated in interrogations equivalent to torture. We believe that psychologists should not use their training and professional expertise to break down the human psyche.
These settings have been internationally condemned. They are inherently objectionable and we would condemn their existence even if the ICRC had not declared the conditions at Guantanamo“tantamount to torture”. We believe that all persons, including prisoners of war, are endowed withcertain inalienable rights. We therefore fundamentally disagree with this administration’s consistent assertion that the detainees possess only the few privileges that the US decides to grant them.
By allowing psychologists to work within the system and within the chain of command at sites that are comprehensively designed to break down the human psyche, the APA, representing the field of psychology, confers professional legitimacy to these settings, and implicitly and explicitly endorses places and programs that violate basic human rights.
Memos prepared by Justice Department lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo state that in order for an action to legally be classified as "torture" it had to be intended to cause harm. As investigative reporter Jane Mayer points out, psychologist participation in interrogations is important to the U.S. Government. Mayer argues that psychologists provide a sense of legitimacy. They could state that the abusive techniques are not intended to cause pain but to extract information.
The Justice Department memos made other objectionable claims in regard to what constituted “psychological torture.” They stated that for techniques to be deemed “psychological torture”, the infliction of severe mental pain was required. Moreover, those acts “must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e. g., lasting for months or even years”; Yoo and Bybee have even argued that DSM-IV criteria for PTSD or depression must be met for the victim of the interrogation to have been considered tortured. As clinicians in these sites, psychologists are in a position to determine and pronounce whether or not a detainee has suffered severe mental pain of “significant duration”, that is, whether the detainee has suffered torture.
In brief, this U.S. Administration has placed psychologists at the center of its legal justification of torture.
Q: Most psychologists abhor torture and would like to see Guantanamo and the black sites shut down, but we are told that interrogating psychologists also serve as “safety officers” who make interrogations “safe and ethical” in addition to “legal and effective.” If this is true, wouldn’t it be worse for detainees if the psychologists left? A: No evidence has been shown to indicate that psychologists play any part in ensuring the safety of detainees. Indeed many abuses at Guantanamo occurred under the direction of Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs), which were led by psychologists and psychiatrists. Psychiatrists, in all probability due to firmer AMA and American Psychiatric Association policies, have since been removed from the teams. Most important, psychologists know from decades of research that good people do bad things in bad situations (cf. Ross and Nisbett, 1991, Zimbardo, 2007). Psychologists subject to the chain of command in an inherently abusive environment (i.e., the CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay) are no less vulnerable to “drift” than anyone else; it is time to start applying the hard-learned lessons of psychology to psychologists.
Q: But I have heard that at least one psychologist, maybe others, did report abuses to his superiors A: There is one confirmed case of a Dr. Michael Gelles reporting up his chain of command on severely harmful behavior that was occurring outside of his command, and we commend him for doing so. Gelles’ actions were supported by his chain of command; many psychologists are directly under commands that order and/or tolerate abuse. There is not one documented case of a psychologist refusing to participate in abuse that was ordered or encouraged by his or her command.
The action of a single psychologist is not a solid basis for policy. It is our responsibility as psychologists to focus on the rules, on ethics, and on law, not just the exceptions to them. The belief that more psychologists are doing more good than harm while they work for the system, within the chain of command, is illusory. In fact, Dr. Larry James, a frequent and outspoken supporter of APA's current policy, was recently quoted by the Associated Press as saying “I learned a long, long time ago, if I'm going to be successful in the intel community, I'm meticulously — in a very, very dedicated way — going to stay in my lane. So if I don't have a specific need to know about something, I don't want to know about it. I don't ask about it."
Q: But aren’t there clinical psychologists at these sites who provide mental health services to the detainees and who never deal with interrogations? A: This is a complex issue. No group needs and deserves psychological services more than victims of torture. Yet, there is a great deal of evidence that clinical psychologists have become part of Guantanamo’s behavior management system and have worked to keep detainees compliant by removing ‘comfort items,’ such as toilet paper. Furthermore, even if psychologists were removed from both the behavior management system and the interrogations process, they would still be subject to the chain of command within an inherently abusive, extra- legal environment. Thus, a psychologist might not know whether s/he has been sent a detainee for help in recuperating that detainee just enough to return for more abusive interrogations (from other psychologists) or whether information gathered by the clinician will be used to break down the‘client’.
Q: Then how can we, as psychologists, help the detainees cope with the consequences of these detentions? A: It is incumbent on us to fight abuses of human rights, and this catch-22 (in which psychological services are provided by the system that is also responsible for cruel and inhuman punishment) is just one of them. Yet excellent alternatives exist. Psychologists could (and should) work directly for the detainees in settings that violate human rights, much in the same way that an attorney offers and provides client services on a pro bono basis at these sites. This is an effort the American Psychological Association should undertake. Psychologists can also work for human rights organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. Either of these alternatives removes psychologists from the chain of command and ensures that psychologists are working for the best interests of their client—not for a system that leads to the deterioration of mental health.
In no way does this referendum effort imply that psychologists should not work for the military. There are many other settings and activities that uphold human rights where military psychologists can have a positive influence.
Q: Yes, but the military and/or clandestine services may not agree to allow independent psychologists to operate inside their facilities. What then? A: Then the APA should demand that independent psychologists be allowed access to these sites or that the detainees be transported to facilities that operate within the rule of law. The APA should fight to put psychology on the side of the tormented, not the tormentor.
Q: What happens if the APA loses the fight to allow independent psychologists access to these sites? A: Then psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, and psychiatric technicians will perform the jobs that psychologists have been performing -- for the benefit or the harm of detainees. We would hope, however, that the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association would eventually follow this moral lead and collaborate to ensure the best protection of detainees and their mental health.
Q: I’ve heard that conditions at Guantanamo were bad at one time but have since improved. A: We wish that were true, but evidence suggests otherwise. What we know comes from leaked reports, partisan investigations, and heavily redacted freedom of information act (FOIA) documents – some of which are little more than blank sheets of paper. Obviously, such secrecy prevents oversight. We have evidence that detainees have been subject to conditions tantamount to torture. We know that the conditions inside Guantanamo are bad enough to have led many people to suicide, despite the U.S. attempt to frame these acts as tactical maneuvers. We will believe that conditions have improved when Guantanamo, the CIA black sites, and other illegal detention centers are subject to full investigations carried out by independent parties with complete access. The onus lies with the administration to prove the abuse has stopped, not with the critic to prove that it hasn’t.
Q. How would this referendum affect psychologists working in places where people are detained for reasons other than the ‘war on terror,’ such as U.S. prisons or juvenile halls? A. This referendum would have no impact whatsoever on psychologists’ work in U.S. prisons or other facilities for a very simple reason: flawed as our justice system might be at times, anyone who is in a U.S. prison has arrived there through an open, judicial process. Unlike the people rounded up in Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo, for instance, a U.S. prisoner has faced actual charges related to an alleged crime, can meet with an attorney, receive family visits and mail, is informed about the length of a time-limited sentence, and can even call a reporter to tell his or her story. It is precisely this series of violations of the Guantanamo detainees’ civil and human rights that makes working at those sites on behalf of their captors and interrogators unethical and unacceptable.
Q. In regard to the U.S. Constitution, the referendum says, “(where appropriate)”, why was that put in there, and what does “(where appropriate)” mean? Where appropriate means settings where the U.S. Constitution forms the law of the land and settings the Supreme Court has decided it applies. It therefore applies to the 50 states, embassies, and areas within the U. S.’ maritime and territorial jurisdiction – it also applies to U.S. citizens everywhere. It does not apply in, say, Canada. So a Canadian psychologist working in Canada is working ‘outside’ of the U.S. Constitution but ‘inside’ of international law.
Q. I have been told that this language will affect the work of psychologists working in jails, prisons and hospitals. See our August 6 letter to APA members on the home page.
Q. This is a complex answer. Why don’t just answer that question with a simple and definitive ‘no’? Because this is a complex situation. If and when Guantanamo and the black sites are closed down the ‘detainees’ could be brought to the U.S. and held under similar conditions. If Guantanamo, the facility, is ‘closed’, the equivalent of Guantanamo, the policy, could be re-established on U.S. soil. In these, and other possible cases, the referendum policy could and should still apply.
Q. If you didn’t mean to target existing U.S. prisons and jails why did you include the words ‘U.S. Constitution’ in the referendum? We had two main reasons for doing so: 1. As we have already mentioned, we are concerned that U.S. torture policy will be brought home. 2. To make it clear that we are endorsing both the U.S. Constitution and international law, as outlined in the U. N. Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, directly and without qualification.
Q. Why is that important? Some people strongly support and value international law. However, the United States has taken an ambivalent stance towards international law by adding “reservations” to some international treaties it has ratified. For example, when it ratified the Convention against Torture, the U.S. added “reservations” that exclude the law’s ban on most forms of psychological torture:
“In its reservations to the Convention against Torture, the United States claims to be bound by the obligation to prevent “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” only insofar as the term means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, U.S. reservations say that mental pain or suffering only refers to prolonged mental harm from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the use or threat of mind altering substances; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) that another person will imminently be subjected to the above mistreatment. (Human Rights Watch, http://hrw. org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm )
We find it unfortunate that the APA has reproduced the language of the U.S. “reservations” in its official statements. Since we believe these “reservations” deserve no additional legitimacy from our organization, this referendum unequivocally endorses both international and constitutional law.
Q. Why haven’t you provided a definition of torture? A. Our first citation includes the internationally accepted definition of torture as well as an extensive discussion of the scope and applicability of international law. It is important to note that this definition – like many legal definitions – is in a state of flux, it changes as courts consider new cases. The jurisprudence surrounding this definition is as important as the definition itself. Further, the definition may change as new treaties are adopted. We would ask the question – why would we accept anything other than the internationally accepted definition?
Q. What do you mean by international law? Which treaties? What courts? Which cases? A. The APA is a UN- recognized nongovernmental organization (NGO) and therefore is subject to the U.N.’s interpretation of international law. We believe that the question is not to which portions of international law should psychologists adhere, but rather why would we be seeking to opt out of some portions of the law?
Q. Isn’t this language vague? A. That depends on what you mean by “vague.” If, by “vague,” you mean badly or inadequately defined, the answer is “no.” We do not believe we have offered poor or partial definitions. If you mean ‘unspecified’, then it is true that we have not specified what portions of international law to which the APA should adhere; nor do we believe that we should do so.
By way of analogy, if we had written a referendum that said: “psychologists shall at all times obey the speed limit,” we could be charged with failing to specify what speed limit psychologists should follow. In this hypothetical and admittedly absurd example it would be appropriate to respond by saying: “that information is easily found and need not be included in the referendum – it is not for us to say”. This is the nature of ethical policies, and the same accusation could just as easily be targeted at any law, policy, or ethical standard in the APA Ethics Code. Likewise we ask why would psychologists attempt to define torture when they could simply refer to internationally accepted definitions?
Q. I understand this referendum, but doesn’t this seem a little simple? Why have you chosen to write this in such ordinary language? A. Two reasons:
We wanted the referendum be easily read and understandable by everyone.
Because the Bush administration has redefined everyday terms in ways that completely subvert the original meanings of the words. Take, for example, ‘participation’: "For purposes of this recommendation the term "participating in interrogations" refers to the active participation by medical personnel during an interrogation. For example, asking questions would be active participation. Medical personnel who assist in developing the plan of interrogation are not deemed to be "participating in an interrogation." Likewise, actual presence in the interrogation room may not constitute "participating in an interrogation." For example, direct observation by medical personnel to ensure the health and welfare of the detainee is not deemed to be "participation in the interrogation." (http://www.defenselink. mil/news/detainee_investigations.html)
Further, we know that many of these definitions – including the current definition of torture – are secret. We do not know what other terms have been secretly redefined. Thus, rather than engage in an effort to define each word we were using, we chose language that is easily understood with use of dictionary or the references we provide.