June, 29 2009, 06:08pm EDT
Open Letter in Response to the American Psychological Association Board
WASHINGTON
On June 18, 2009, the American Psychological Association
[APA] Board issued an Open Letter on the subject of psychologists' involvement
in abusive national security interrogations. The letter is among the first
formal acknowledgements from APA leadership that psychologists were involved in
torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. We welcome this
progress.
Similarly, the letter acknowledges APA's member-initiated
referendum prohibiting psychologist participation in detention centers that are
in violation of international law and overturning APA Council's repeated
refusals to do so. This is an improvement over very recent messages from APA
officials that characterized press descriptions of APA policy as supporting
psychologist participation in such interrogations as "fair and balanced."
Nevertheless, the letter is profoundly
disappointing. It continues the
long tradition of APA leaders minimizing the extent of psychologists'
involvement in state-sanctioned abuse as well as APA's own defense of such
involvement. The authors speak as
though the information about psychologist's involvement in torture is fresh news
even though it has been available for a long time. Even now, the Board relies on
the Bush Administration tactic, employed in the Abu Ghraib debacle, of blaming
the abuse on a "few bad apples." This minimization of the greatest ethical
crisis in our profession's history by those who claim to lead the profession is
unacceptable. Similarly the APA Board continues to take no responsibility for
its own grievous mismanagement of this issue. Instead, the tone of the letter suggests
we should all come together and "reflect and learn," because this has been
difficult for all of us, collectively. The Board also presumes the authority to
continue to speak for psychologists in the future with neither redress nor
evidence of remediation for what they have done:
This has been a painful time for the association and one
that offers an opportunity to reflect and learn from our experiences over the
last five years. APA will continue to speak forcefully in further communicating
our policies against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment to our members, the Obama administration, Congress, and the general
public. [Board letter, June 18, 2009.]
Any meaningful approach to this issue must start by
acknowledging the fact that psychologists were absolutely integral to our
government's systematic program of torture. When the Bush administration decided
to engage in torture, they turned to psychologists from the military's SERE
[Survival, Evasion, resistance, and Escape] program for help in designing and
implementing the torture tactics. This fact was first reported in 2005, within
days of the release of the APA's PENS [Psychological Ethics and National
Security] report and was officially acknowledged by the Defense Department in
its Inspector General's Report, declassified in May 2007. Other psychologists
monitored torture to calibrate how much abuse a detainee could tolerate without
dying. Nonetheless, APA leaders
continued, and still continue, to pretend that psychologists' participation in
abuse was the behavior of rogue members of the
profession.
Similarly, the APA Board still refuses to acknowledge the
evidence of apparent collusion between APA officials and the national security
apparatus in providing ethical cover for psychologists' participation in
detainee abuse. This collusion was most notable in the creation of the
military-dominated PENS task force.
Only a policy that comes to terms with this APA collusion can begin to reduce
the furor among APA members, psychologists, and the general
public.
APA leadership has much work ahead to begin to repair the
harm they have caused to the profession, the country, former and current
detainees and their families. At a
minimum the APA leadership should do the following:
1. Fully implement the 2008 referendum as an enforceable
section of the APA Code of Ethics. This entails a public announcement that APA
policy and ethical standards oppose the service of psychologists in detention
facilities at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Air Base, CIA secret
prisons, or in the rendition program.
2. Annul the June 2005 PENS Report due to the severe and
multiple conflicts of interest involved in its
production.
3. Bring in an independent body of investigative
attorneys to pursue accountability for psychologists who participated in or
otherwise contributed to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. APA
should also: (a) clarify the status of open ethics cases and (b) remove the
statute of limitations for violations involving torture or cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment, so as to allow time for information on classified
activities to become public.
4. Develop a clear and rapid timetable to remove Sections
1.02 and 1.03 [the "Nuremberg defense" of following orders] from
the APA Code of Ethics. [We note that the
APA Ethics Committee has stated that they will not accept a defense of following
orders to complaints regarding torture; this statement is a welcome improvement
but it is clearly inadequate as it is not necessarily binding on future
committees nor does it cover abuses falling under the category of cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment.]
Revoke the equally
problematic Section 8.05 of the Code, which dispenses with informed consent
"where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations," and
Section 8.07, which sets an unacceptably high threshold of "severe emotional
distress" for not using deception in the ethics of research
design.
5. Retain an independent investigatory organization to
study organizational behavior at APA. Due to potential conflicts of interest,
independent human rights organizations should be enlisted to select this
investigatory entity. The study should address, among other things, possible
collusion in the PENS process and the 2003 APA-CIA-Rand conference on the
Science of Deception, attended by the CIA's apparent designers of their torture
program [James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen] during which "enhanced interrogation"
techniques were discussed. The
study should explore how the APA governance system permits the accumulation of
power in the hands of a very small number of individuals who are unresponsive to
the general membership. It should
also propose measures to return the APA to democratic principles, scientific
integrity, and beneficence, including restructuring for greater transparency and
the assimilation of diverse
viewpoints.
These five steps will not
remove the terrible stain on the reputation of American psychology. However, by
taking these steps the APA leadership would make both symbolic and substantive
progress toward accountability for psychologists' contributions to detainee
abuse and the APA's failure to adequately respond to the public record. These
actions would constitute an important step toward rehabilitating the Association
and restoring the good name of
the profession
itself.
Signed by:
Coalition for an Ethical
Psychology
Physicians for Human
Rights
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Center for Constitutional
Rights
Bill of Rights Defense
Committee
Network of Spiritual
Progressives
National Lawyers
Guild
Program for Torture Victims, Los
Angeles
American Friends Service Committee, Pacific Southwest
Region
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los
Angeles
Massachusetts Campaign Against Torture
(MACAT)
New
York Campaign Against Torture
(NYCAT)
LATEST NEWS
Military Budget Bill Would Ramp Up Israel Aid to Fill In 'Gaps' When Other Countries Impose Embargoes Over Genocide
The House Armed Services Committee said in September that the measure "combats antisemitism."
Dec 09, 2025
A little-reported provision of the latest military spending bill would direct the US to create a plan to fill the "gaps" for Israel whenever other nations cut off arms shipments in response to its acts of genocide in Gaza.
As Prem Thakker reported Monday for Zeteo, the measure is "buried" more than 1,000 pages into the more than 3,000-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is considered by lawmakers to be “must-pass" legislation and contains a record $901 billion in total spending.
Republicans are shepherding the bill through the US House of Representatives, where—as is the case with most NDAAs—it is expected to pass on Wednesday with Democratic support, even as some conservative budget hardliners refuse to back it, primarily over its $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine.
Since the genocide began following Hamas' attack on October 7, 2023, the US has provided more than $21.7 billion to Israel, including hundreds of millions that have been supplied through NDAAs.
The new NDAA includes at least another $650 million to Israel, an increase of $45 million from the previous one, even though this is the first such bill to be introduced since the "ceasefire" that went into effect in October. This aid from the Pentagon comes on top of the $3.3 billion already provided through the State Department budget.
But this NDAA also contains an unprecedented measure. It calls for the “continual assessment of [the] impact of international state arms embargoes on Israel and actions to address defense capability gaps."
The NDAA directs Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to assess “the scope, nature, and impact on Israel’s defense capabilities of current and emerging arms embargoes, sanctions, restrictions, or limitations imposed by foreign countries or by international organizations,” and “the resulting gaps or vulnerabilities in Israel’s security posture.”
As Drop Site News explains, "this means the US would explicitly use federal law to step in and supply weapons to Israel whenever other countries cut off arms to halt Israel’s ongoing violations across the region."
"The point of this assistance, to be clear, is to make up for any identified insufficiencies Israel may have due to other countries' embargoing it as a result of its ongoing genocide in Palestine," Thakker wrote.
A similar provision appeared in a September version of the NDAA, which the House Armed Services Committee praised because it supposedly “combats antisemitism"—explicitly conflating a bias against Jewish people with weapons embargoes that countries have imposed to stop Israel from continuing its routine, documented human rights violations in Gaza.
Among the nations that have cut off weapons sales to Israel are Japan, Canada, France, Italy, and Spain. Meanwhile, other major backers, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, have imposed partial freezes on certain weaponry.
While official estimates from the Gaza Ministry of Health place the number of dead from Israel's military campaign at over 70,000, with more than 170,000 wounded, an independent assessment last month from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany and the Center for Demographic Studies in Spain found that the death toll “likely exceeds 100,000." This finding mirrored several other studies that have projected the true death toll to be much higher than what official estimates show.
Embargoes against Israel have been called for by a group of experts mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council, including Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, numerous human rights organizations, including the leading Israeli group B’Tselem, have said Israel’s campaign in Gaza has amounted to genocide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Who Will Be in Charge?’ Sanders Warns of AI Future Dominated by Handful of Billionaires
"Are we comfortable with seeing these enormously wealthy and powerful men shape the future of humanity without any democratic input or oversight?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Dec 09, 2025
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Monday that policymakers in the United States and around the world are at a critical juncture where they must decide whether artificial intelligence will be controlled and exploited by the ultra-wealthy—or utilized for the benefit of all humanity.
In a speech on the floor of the US Senate, Sanders (I-Vt.) said the key question is, "Who will be in charge of the transformation into an AI world?"
"Currently, a handful of the wealthiest people on Earth—people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and others—and others are investing many, many hundreds of billions of dollars in developing and implementing AI and robotics," the senator said. "Are we comfortable with seeing these enormously wealthy and powerful men shape the future of humanity without any democratic input or oversight?"
Watch the full speech:
Sanders noted that US President Donald Trump "is strongly supporting" billionaire dominance of burgeoning AI technology, including with his plan to sign an executive order aimed at blocking state-level regulations of the artificial intelligence industry.
"Does this elite group of some of the most powerful people on Earth believe that they have the divine right to rule?" the senator asked.
Sanders also emphasized the potentially catastrophic impact of AI technology on workers, as Amazon and other corporate giants seek to replace as many jobs as possible with robots. In October, Sanders released a report estimating that advances in AI technology could supplant nearly 100 million US jobs over the next decade, including 89% of fast food workers and 40% of registered nurses.
"If AI and robotics eliminate millions of jobs and create massive unemployment, how will people survive if they have no income? How do they feed their families, pay for housing, pay for healthcare?" Sanders asked. "That might be an issue that we should be talking about, like, yesterday."
In recent weeks, Sanders has made burgeoning AI technology and its concentration in the hands of a few powerful individuals and corporations a major focus, holding an event with computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton—who is known as the "godfather of AI"—and warning about the promise and peril of artificial intelligence in the pages of major newspapers.
"AI and robotics are revolutionary technologies that will bring about an unprecedented transformation of society," Sanders wrote in a Guardian column last week. "Will these changes be positive and improve life for ordinary Americans? Or will they be disastrous? Congress must act now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Report Estimates Bold Climate Action Would Deliver $100 Trillion in Benefits by 2100
"If we choose to stay on the current path—powering our economies with fossil fuels, extracting virgin resources, destroying nature, polluting the environment—the damages would stack up."
Dec 09, 2025
A new report from the United Nations Environment Program has found that addressing the global climate emergency would deliver major economic benefits, in addition to creating a cleaner and more habitable planet.
The seventh edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO), released on Tuesday, estimates that making up-front investments in climate action now would begin to yield global macroeconomic benefits starting in 2050, potentially growing to $20 trillion per year by 2070 and $100 trillion by 2100.
The report, which was the product of nearly 300 multi-disciplinary scientists across more than 80 countries, argues that a total of $8 trillion in annual investment from this year until 2050 would be needed to achieve its climate goals. But, the report stresses, the cost of inaction would be far greater.
"If we choose to stay on the current path—powering our economies with fossil fuels, extracting virgin resources, destroying nature, polluting the environment—the damages would stack up," the report warns. "Climate change would cut 4% off annual global GDP by 2050, claim many lives, and increase forced migration."
Other likely consequences of inaction, warns the report, include "Amazon forest dieback and ice-sheet collapse," along with the loss of "hundreds of millions more hectares of natural lands." The report also projects that global food availability will fall if the climate crisis is not addressed, and that increased air pollution will cause an additional 4 million premature deaths per year.
The report recommends a rapid move away from fossil fuels, as well as a drastic rethinking of agricultural subsidies so that they no longer "directly favor activities that have significant harmful effects on the environment, including on biodiversity."
Robert Watson, a co-chair of the GEO assessment, said in an interview with the Guardian that the climate crisis cannot simply be seen as an environmental issue given that it is now "undermining our economy, food security, water security, human health," and also creating national security problems by increasing "conflict in many parts of the world."
In an interview with BBC, Watson also accused US President Donald Trump's administration of sabotaging the report by refusing to even accept its conclusions about the damage being done by human-induced climate change.
"The US decided not to attend the meeting at all," he explained. "At the very end they joined by teleconference and basically made a statement that they could not agree with most of the report, which means they didn't agree with anything we said on climate change, biodiversity, fossil fuels, plastics, and subsidies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular