"There is no evidence that any APA official expressed concern over mounting reports of psychological involvement in detainee abuse," states report. (Photo: casmaron/flickr/cc)
Apr 30, 2015
A new report from human rights investigators and medical professionals reveals that the prestigious American Psychological Association secretly helped the administration of former President George W. Bush legally and medically justify its post-9/11 torture program.
The findings are based on emails obtained by James Risen, the New York Times reporter and author who has found himself at the center of a nation-wide debate about free press for refusing to reveal his sources.
The report concludes that the APA "secretly coordinated with officials from the CIA, White House, and the Department of Defense to create an APA ethics policy on national security interrogations that comported with then-classified legal guidance authorizing the CIA torture program."
Critical legal and ethical cover was provided by the APA in 2004 and 2005 when "the interrogation program faced increasing political, legal, and operational threats," in part due to public revelations of torture at the Abu Ghraib U.S. military prison in Iraq, the report authors note.
For example, the report states:
A U.S. government research scientist, who had recently served as President Bush's behavioral science advisor, is reported to have secretly drafted 'language related to research' inserted by APA officials into the 2005 APA ethics policy on interrogations. While the exact language of the alleged contribution is not known, the section on research aligned that policy with the then-classified Bradbury 'torture memos.' The Bradbury memos directed health professionals to research and assess the supposed safety, efficacy, and health impacts of the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques. The memos were introduced at a time when CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) personnel were protesting the expanded involvement of health professionals in helping determine the legality of the techniques.
"Despite substantial contact between the APA, the White House and CIA officials, including the over 600 emails noted in this report, there is no evidence that any APA official expressed concern over mounting reports of psychological involvement in detainee abuse during four years of direct email communications with senior members of the U.S. intelligence community," states the report.
Risen wrote in a New York Timesarticle published Thursday about the report, "The involvement of health professionals in the Bush-era interrogation program was significant because it enabled the Justice Department to argue in secret opinions that the program was legal and did not constitute torture, since the interrogations were being monitored by health professionals to make sure they were safe."
The three lead authors of the report are described by Risen as "longtime and outspoken critics of the association."
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
A new report from human rights investigators and medical professionals reveals that the prestigious American Psychological Association secretly helped the administration of former President George W. Bush legally and medically justify its post-9/11 torture program.
The findings are based on emails obtained by James Risen, the New York Times reporter and author who has found himself at the center of a nation-wide debate about free press for refusing to reveal his sources.
The report concludes that the APA "secretly coordinated with officials from the CIA, White House, and the Department of Defense to create an APA ethics policy on national security interrogations that comported with then-classified legal guidance authorizing the CIA torture program."
Critical legal and ethical cover was provided by the APA in 2004 and 2005 when "the interrogation program faced increasing political, legal, and operational threats," in part due to public revelations of torture at the Abu Ghraib U.S. military prison in Iraq, the report authors note.
For example, the report states:
A U.S. government research scientist, who had recently served as President Bush's behavioral science advisor, is reported to have secretly drafted 'language related to research' inserted by APA officials into the 2005 APA ethics policy on interrogations. While the exact language of the alleged contribution is not known, the section on research aligned that policy with the then-classified Bradbury 'torture memos.' The Bradbury memos directed health professionals to research and assess the supposed safety, efficacy, and health impacts of the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques. The memos were introduced at a time when CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) personnel were protesting the expanded involvement of health professionals in helping determine the legality of the techniques.
"Despite substantial contact between the APA, the White House and CIA officials, including the over 600 emails noted in this report, there is no evidence that any APA official expressed concern over mounting reports of psychological involvement in detainee abuse during four years of direct email communications with senior members of the U.S. intelligence community," states the report.
Risen wrote in a New York Timesarticle published Thursday about the report, "The involvement of health professionals in the Bush-era interrogation program was significant because it enabled the Justice Department to argue in secret opinions that the program was legal and did not constitute torture, since the interrogations were being monitored by health professionals to make sure they were safe."
The three lead authors of the report are described by Risen as "longtime and outspoken critics of the association."
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
A new report from human rights investigators and medical professionals reveals that the prestigious American Psychological Association secretly helped the administration of former President George W. Bush legally and medically justify its post-9/11 torture program.
The findings are based on emails obtained by James Risen, the New York Times reporter and author who has found himself at the center of a nation-wide debate about free press for refusing to reveal his sources.
The report concludes that the APA "secretly coordinated with officials from the CIA, White House, and the Department of Defense to create an APA ethics policy on national security interrogations that comported with then-classified legal guidance authorizing the CIA torture program."
Critical legal and ethical cover was provided by the APA in 2004 and 2005 when "the interrogation program faced increasing political, legal, and operational threats," in part due to public revelations of torture at the Abu Ghraib U.S. military prison in Iraq, the report authors note.
For example, the report states:
A U.S. government research scientist, who had recently served as President Bush's behavioral science advisor, is reported to have secretly drafted 'language related to research' inserted by APA officials into the 2005 APA ethics policy on interrogations. While the exact language of the alleged contribution is not known, the section on research aligned that policy with the then-classified Bradbury 'torture memos.' The Bradbury memos directed health professionals to research and assess the supposed safety, efficacy, and health impacts of the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques. The memos were introduced at a time when CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) personnel were protesting the expanded involvement of health professionals in helping determine the legality of the techniques.
"Despite substantial contact between the APA, the White House and CIA officials, including the over 600 emails noted in this report, there is no evidence that any APA official expressed concern over mounting reports of psychological involvement in detainee abuse during four years of direct email communications with senior members of the U.S. intelligence community," states the report.
Risen wrote in a New York Timesarticle published Thursday about the report, "The involvement of health professionals in the Bush-era interrogation program was significant because it enabled the Justice Department to argue in secret opinions that the program was legal and did not constitute torture, since the interrogations were being monitored by health professionals to make sure they were safe."
The three lead authors of the report are described by Risen as "longtime and outspoken critics of the association."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.