SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
First Step for Reform: APA Votes to Bar Psychologists From Colluding in Torture
Largest association of psychologists passes measure prohibiting members from participating in interrogations done in name of national security
Aug 08, 2015
The American Psychological Association (APA) on Friday voted overwhelmingly to bar its members from participating in the interrogation of U.S. prisoners on foreign soil, officially ending the association's complicity in the torture of detainees and taking the first step out of "the dark side."
All but one member of the APA's 173-person Council of Representatives voted to end the association's collusion with the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies in abusive interrogations as well as the so-called "noncoercive" kind now being carried out by the Obama administration.
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib military psychologist Col. Larry James cast the sole dissenting vote. There were also seven abstentions and one recusal.
The debate among members at their annual meeting in Toronto was reportedly emotional as they rehashed the bombshell internal investigation, published earlier this year, which exposed the APA's participation in the CIA's brutal methods of imprisonment and questioning. The Hoffman Report led to the swift resignations of several top APA officials, including its CEO, who stepped down in July.
Reports on the vote began circulating last week. An APA statement on July 29 recommended that its members adopt a policy prohibiting "psychologist participation in interrogation of persons held in custody by military/intelligence authorities."
The vote was met with a standing ovation. The ban states that psychologists "shall not conduct, supervise, be present at, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation."
"This is an extraordinary victory because these prohibitions are clear, they're implementable, and people will be held accountable," council member Steven Reisner told the Guardian on Friday. The APA will go "from leading us into the dark side to leading us out of the dark side."
Nadine Kaslow, an APA member and head of the investigation committee, told the New York Times that the vote was "a very resounding yes." The association's president-elect, Susan McDaniel, added that it was "a tremendous step in the right direction."
Reisner also noted that the vote only prohibits psychologists from colluding in interrogations conducted in the name of national security, ignoring "domestic cruelty" carried out within the U.S. justice system. But he said he hoped the APA's decision could influence the treatment of American prisoners as well. "We have to consider that in the future," he said.
While reformers welcomed the vote, they steadfastly maintained that it was only one crucial element in fixing the APA's broken "moral compass." That includes not just its actions in aiding torture but also its suppression of would-be whistleblowers and others who objected to the association's role in the program.
APA council member Stephen Soldz, who has helped lead the charge for reform at the association, stated on Friday that there is "something profoundly wrong with the way the organization functions.... No one in leadership ever spoke up against it. Not one board member or anyone in leadership over the past 10 years said, 'This is not right.'"
Acknowledging as such in an APA statement, McDaniel added, "We have much work ahead as we change the culture of APA to be more transparent and much more focused on human rights. In addition, we will institute clearer conflict-of-interest policies going forward, all of which are aimed at ensuring that APA regains the trust of its members and the public."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
abu ghraibamerican psychological associationguantanamoguantanamo bayhuman rightspublic healthtorturewar on terrorwhistleblowers
The American Psychological Association (APA) on Friday voted overwhelmingly to bar its members from participating in the interrogation of U.S. prisoners on foreign soil, officially ending the association's complicity in the torture of detainees and taking the first step out of "the dark side."
All but one member of the APA's 173-person Council of Representatives voted to end the association's collusion with the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies in abusive interrogations as well as the so-called "noncoercive" kind now being carried out by the Obama administration.
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib military psychologist Col. Larry James cast the sole dissenting vote. There were also seven abstentions and one recusal.
The debate among members at their annual meeting in Toronto was reportedly emotional as they rehashed the bombshell internal investigation, published earlier this year, which exposed the APA's participation in the CIA's brutal methods of imprisonment and questioning. The Hoffman Report led to the swift resignations of several top APA officials, including its CEO, who stepped down in July.
Reports on the vote began circulating last week. An APA statement on July 29 recommended that its members adopt a policy prohibiting "psychologist participation in interrogation of persons held in custody by military/intelligence authorities."
The vote was met with a standing ovation. The ban states that psychologists "shall not conduct, supervise, be present at, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation."
"This is an extraordinary victory because these prohibitions are clear, they're implementable, and people will be held accountable," council member Steven Reisner told the Guardian on Friday. The APA will go "from leading us into the dark side to leading us out of the dark side."
Nadine Kaslow, an APA member and head of the investigation committee, told the New York Times that the vote was "a very resounding yes." The association's president-elect, Susan McDaniel, added that it was "a tremendous step in the right direction."
Reisner also noted that the vote only prohibits psychologists from colluding in interrogations conducted in the name of national security, ignoring "domestic cruelty" carried out within the U.S. justice system. But he said he hoped the APA's decision could influence the treatment of American prisoners as well. "We have to consider that in the future," he said.
While reformers welcomed the vote, they steadfastly maintained that it was only one crucial element in fixing the APA's broken "moral compass." That includes not just its actions in aiding torture but also its suppression of would-be whistleblowers and others who objected to the association's role in the program.
APA council member Stephen Soldz, who has helped lead the charge for reform at the association, stated on Friday that there is "something profoundly wrong with the way the organization functions.... No one in leadership ever spoke up against it. Not one board member or anyone in leadership over the past 10 years said, 'This is not right.'"
Acknowledging as such in an APA statement, McDaniel added, "We have much work ahead as we change the culture of APA to be more transparent and much more focused on human rights. In addition, we will institute clearer conflict-of-interest policies going forward, all of which are aimed at ensuring that APA regains the trust of its members and the public."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The American Psychological Association (APA) on Friday voted overwhelmingly to bar its members from participating in the interrogation of U.S. prisoners on foreign soil, officially ending the association's complicity in the torture of detainees and taking the first step out of "the dark side."
All but one member of the APA's 173-person Council of Representatives voted to end the association's collusion with the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies in abusive interrogations as well as the so-called "noncoercive" kind now being carried out by the Obama administration.
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib military psychologist Col. Larry James cast the sole dissenting vote. There were also seven abstentions and one recusal.
The debate among members at their annual meeting in Toronto was reportedly emotional as they rehashed the bombshell internal investigation, published earlier this year, which exposed the APA's participation in the CIA's brutal methods of imprisonment and questioning. The Hoffman Report led to the swift resignations of several top APA officials, including its CEO, who stepped down in July.
Reports on the vote began circulating last week. An APA statement on July 29 recommended that its members adopt a policy prohibiting "psychologist participation in interrogation of persons held in custody by military/intelligence authorities."
The vote was met with a standing ovation. The ban states that psychologists "shall not conduct, supervise, be present at, or otherwise assist any national security interrogations for any military or intelligence entities, including private contractors working on their behalf, nor advise on conditions of confinement insofar as these might facilitate such an interrogation."
"This is an extraordinary victory because these prohibitions are clear, they're implementable, and people will be held accountable," council member Steven Reisner told the Guardian on Friday. The APA will go "from leading us into the dark side to leading us out of the dark side."
Nadine Kaslow, an APA member and head of the investigation committee, told the New York Times that the vote was "a very resounding yes." The association's president-elect, Susan McDaniel, added that it was "a tremendous step in the right direction."
Reisner also noted that the vote only prohibits psychologists from colluding in interrogations conducted in the name of national security, ignoring "domestic cruelty" carried out within the U.S. justice system. But he said he hoped the APA's decision could influence the treatment of American prisoners as well. "We have to consider that in the future," he said.
While reformers welcomed the vote, they steadfastly maintained that it was only one crucial element in fixing the APA's broken "moral compass." That includes not just its actions in aiding torture but also its suppression of would-be whistleblowers and others who objected to the association's role in the program.
APA council member Stephen Soldz, who has helped lead the charge for reform at the association, stated on Friday that there is "something profoundly wrong with the way the organization functions.... No one in leadership ever spoke up against it. Not one board member or anyone in leadership over the past 10 years said, 'This is not right.'"
Acknowledging as such in an APA statement, McDaniel added, "We have much work ahead as we change the culture of APA to be more transparent and much more focused on human rights. In addition, we will institute clearer conflict-of-interest policies going forward, all of which are aimed at ensuring that APA regains the trust of its members and the public."
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.