SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A representative from the U.S. Department of Defense asked the APA to consider its "views regarding the presence of psychologists at Guantanamo" as "a matter of policy, not an ethical mandate."(Photo: Justin Norman/cc/flickr)
The U.S. Department of Defense is asking the American Psychological Association (APA) to place its ethical considerations aside and reconsider its ban prohibiting psychologists from participating in torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
In a memo dated January 8 and reported by the New York Times on Sunday, Brad Carson, the acting principal deputy secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, called on the group to reconsider the "blanket prohibition" approved this summer.
Although "the Department of Defense understands the desire of the American psychology profession to make a strong statement regarding reports about the role of former military psychologists more than a dozen years ago, the issue now is to apply the lessons learned to guide future conduct," Carson wrote.
"The context of future conflicts--whether a traditional international armed conflict like World War II or the Korean War, a defense of the homeland against international terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or something entirely unpredictable -- is today unknown," he continued.
"A code governing psychologists' ethics in future national security roles needs to fit all such contexts," Carson added. "We respectfully suggest that a blanket prohibition on participation by psychologists in national security interrogations does not."
The APA's council voted overwhelmingly to approve the ban after an independent report found that "some of the association's top officials, including its ethics director, sought to curry favor with Pentagon officials by seeking to keep the association's ethics policies in line with the Defense Department's interrogation policies," the Times reported in July.
The 542-page "Hoffman Report," named after former Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hoffman, who led the review, undermined the APA's repeated denials that its members were complicit in torture.
Further, it skewered the role of prominent outside psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who have been charged with designing and implementing the CIA's brutal interrogation program.
In the January 8 memo, Carson reportedly asked the group to consider its "views regarding the presence of psychologists at Guantanamo" as "a matter of policy, not an ethical mandate."
The Pentagon penned the memo days after it was reported that the U.S. military had "sharply curtailed" the use of psychologists at Guantanamo, following a formal request from the APA that military psychologists "be protected from actions that might pose a conflict with the APA Ethics Code and that they be withdrawn from any role in national security interrogations or conditions of confinement that might facilitate such interrogations."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The U.S. Department of Defense is asking the American Psychological Association (APA) to place its ethical considerations aside and reconsider its ban prohibiting psychologists from participating in torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
In a memo dated January 8 and reported by the New York Times on Sunday, Brad Carson, the acting principal deputy secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, called on the group to reconsider the "blanket prohibition" approved this summer.
Although "the Department of Defense understands the desire of the American psychology profession to make a strong statement regarding reports about the role of former military psychologists more than a dozen years ago, the issue now is to apply the lessons learned to guide future conduct," Carson wrote.
"The context of future conflicts--whether a traditional international armed conflict like World War II or the Korean War, a defense of the homeland against international terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or something entirely unpredictable -- is today unknown," he continued.
"A code governing psychologists' ethics in future national security roles needs to fit all such contexts," Carson added. "We respectfully suggest that a blanket prohibition on participation by psychologists in national security interrogations does not."
The APA's council voted overwhelmingly to approve the ban after an independent report found that "some of the association's top officials, including its ethics director, sought to curry favor with Pentagon officials by seeking to keep the association's ethics policies in line with the Defense Department's interrogation policies," the Times reported in July.
The 542-page "Hoffman Report," named after former Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hoffman, who led the review, undermined the APA's repeated denials that its members were complicit in torture.
Further, it skewered the role of prominent outside psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who have been charged with designing and implementing the CIA's brutal interrogation program.
In the January 8 memo, Carson reportedly asked the group to consider its "views regarding the presence of psychologists at Guantanamo" as "a matter of policy, not an ethical mandate."
The Pentagon penned the memo days after it was reported that the U.S. military had "sharply curtailed" the use of psychologists at Guantanamo, following a formal request from the APA that military psychologists "be protected from actions that might pose a conflict with the APA Ethics Code and that they be withdrawn from any role in national security interrogations or conditions of confinement that might facilitate such interrogations."
The U.S. Department of Defense is asking the American Psychological Association (APA) to place its ethical considerations aside and reconsider its ban prohibiting psychologists from participating in torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.
In a memo dated January 8 and reported by the New York Times on Sunday, Brad Carson, the acting principal deputy secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, called on the group to reconsider the "blanket prohibition" approved this summer.
Although "the Department of Defense understands the desire of the American psychology profession to make a strong statement regarding reports about the role of former military psychologists more than a dozen years ago, the issue now is to apply the lessons learned to guide future conduct," Carson wrote.
"The context of future conflicts--whether a traditional international armed conflict like World War II or the Korean War, a defense of the homeland against international terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda or the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or something entirely unpredictable -- is today unknown," he continued.
"A code governing psychologists' ethics in future national security roles needs to fit all such contexts," Carson added. "We respectfully suggest that a blanket prohibition on participation by psychologists in national security interrogations does not."
The APA's council voted overwhelmingly to approve the ban after an independent report found that "some of the association's top officials, including its ethics director, sought to curry favor with Pentagon officials by seeking to keep the association's ethics policies in line with the Defense Department's interrogation policies," the Times reported in July.
The 542-page "Hoffman Report," named after former Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hoffman, who led the review, undermined the APA's repeated denials that its members were complicit in torture.
Further, it skewered the role of prominent outside psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who have been charged with designing and implementing the CIA's brutal interrogation program.
In the January 8 memo, Carson reportedly asked the group to consider its "views regarding the presence of psychologists at Guantanamo" as "a matter of policy, not an ethical mandate."
The Pentagon penned the memo days after it was reported that the U.S. military had "sharply curtailed" the use of psychologists at Guantanamo, following a formal request from the APA that military psychologists "be protected from actions that might pose a conflict with the APA Ethics Code and that they be withdrawn from any role in national security interrogations or conditions of confinement that might facilitate such interrogations."