Michael Otterman's powerful book, 
Michael Otterman is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney, as well as an award-winning journalist and filmmaker.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
APA Endorses Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
This past weekend the American Psychological Association (APA) held its annual convention and on Sunday passed a new resolution ostensibly banning psychologist involvement in torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading (CID) treatment. Upon close reading, it is clear that the resolution achieves the opposite: it cunningly allows for continued psychologist involvement in an array of well-documented US tortures, namely isolation, sensory deprivation, over-stimulation and sleep deprivation.
How does an order titled the "Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as 'Enemy Combatants'" achieve such a feat? In the same way as the Military Commissions Act does largely the same thing: by defining torture and CID treatment in narrow, confusing and loophole-laden terms.
The APA resolution breaks the whole gamut of US torture into three rough categories. The first category lists the most egregious tortures and rightly bans psychologist participation in them, while the second and third categories use legalistic language in such a way to allow for continued involvement in these specified methods. To its credit, the resolution states that it "is by no means limited to" these three categories, but lists them none-the-less.
Let's look at the first category. According to the resolution, there is now:
Instead, the resolution creates another category. The second category includes a ban on tortures "used for the purpose of eliciting information". This includes "the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances", plus "hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death".
As Valtin deftly points out, the wording here implies that psychotropic drugs and the assorted tortures above can indeed be used as long as it is not for the distinct purpose of "eliciting information". Therefore, they may be used for the purpose of prolonging capture shock or to soften-up detainees awaiting interrogation.
Finally, there is the third category-- the most loophole laden set. This category bans psych involvement in "isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation" only if they are A) "used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering" or B) "used in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm".
Condition A is extremely problematic. If these methods only cause slight or moderate pain, psychologists can participate in their use. Condition B is even more troubling. If a "reasonable person" (a murky and undefined term) believes the methods will not "cause lasting harm" then psych participation in these techniques is also permitted. This is crucial because psychological tortures like sensory deprivation and over-stimulation do not leave physical marks and sometimes seem innocuous to outside observers. The fact is-- as Physicians for Human Rights recently pointed out-- they are often more damaging than traditional physical tortures and inflict deeper trauma on victims.
To review: The APA resolution strongly bans psych participation in mock executions, waterboarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, and induced hypothermia.
The resolution arguably allows psych participation during "softening up" of detainees using psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances, plus hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, and threats of harm or death.
Finally, the order permits-- arguably at all times-- psych involvement with isolation, sensory deprivation, over-stimulation and sleep deprivation.
Far from banning psychologist participation in torture and CID, the order actually permits it. In this way it follows in the footsteps of such Bush Administration creations as the Military Commission Act, the 2002 torture memos and the recent CIA Executive Order that re-authorized the CIA black site program. The new APA resolution now ranks among these odious documents. This constitutes a new low for the organization-- and a gross disregard for the APA pledge "to do no harm".
How does an order titled the "Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as 'Enemy Combatants'" achieve such a feat? In the same way as the Military Commissions Act does largely the same thing: by defining torture and CID treatment in narrow, confusing and loophole-laden terms.
The APA resolution breaks the whole gamut of US torture into three rough categories. The first category lists the most egregious tortures and rightly bans psychologist participation in them, while the second and third categories use legalistic language in such a way to allow for continued involvement in these specified methods. To its credit, the resolution states that it "is by no means limited to" these three categories, but lists them none-the-less.
Let's look at the first category. According to the resolution, there is now:
an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, [and] induced hypothermia ...These are the most brutal physical and psychological tortures to have been used (and sometimes photographed) at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and CIA black sites. Banning psych-involvement with these tortures is an important move for the APA to take. But, if the APA was serious about banning all psychologist involvement in torture, it would list all the well-documented American tortures in this first category. Alas, it has not.
Instead, the resolution creates another category. The second category includes a ban on tortures "used for the purpose of eliciting information". This includes "the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances", plus "hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death".
As Valtin deftly points out, the wording here implies that psychotropic drugs and the assorted tortures above can indeed be used as long as it is not for the distinct purpose of "eliciting information". Therefore, they may be used for the purpose of prolonging capture shock or to soften-up detainees awaiting interrogation.
Finally, there is the third category-- the most loophole laden set. This category bans psych involvement in "isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation" only if they are A) "used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering" or B) "used in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm".
Condition A is extremely problematic. If these methods only cause slight or moderate pain, psychologists can participate in their use. Condition B is even more troubling. If a "reasonable person" (a murky and undefined term) believes the methods will not "cause lasting harm" then psych participation in these techniques is also permitted. This is crucial because psychological tortures like sensory deprivation and over-stimulation do not leave physical marks and sometimes seem innocuous to outside observers. The fact is-- as Physicians for Human Rights recently pointed out-- they are often more damaging than traditional physical tortures and inflict deeper trauma on victims.
To review: The APA resolution strongly bans psych participation in mock executions, waterboarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, and induced hypothermia.
The resolution arguably allows psych participation during "softening up" of detainees using psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances, plus hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, and threats of harm or death.
Finally, the order permits-- arguably at all times-- psych involvement with isolation, sensory deprivation, over-stimulation and sleep deprivation.
Far from banning psychologist participation in torture and CID, the order actually permits it. In this way it follows in the footsteps of such Bush Administration creations as the Military Commission Act, the 2002 torture memos and the recent CIA Executive Order that re-authorized the CIA black site program. The new APA resolution now ranks among these odious documents. This constitutes a new low for the organization-- and a gross disregard for the APA pledge "to do no harm".