As mentioned in my update, below, John Grohol finally replied to my rebuttal---back in the comments at his blog, where he could enjoy a less than rigorous standard for addressing the evidence that I brought to the table.
Grohol has gracioulsy let through the comments that I left today, without long delay. Below is what I wrote back to Grohol in the comments at his blog. Pasted in below the fold is the comment of his, which I am responding to here.
John, Thank you for letting my comment through, finally. And for responding.
In your first four paragraphs you tell me why, perhaps, psychologists, out of a sense of indebtedness to the military for prescription privileges, may be more willing to support torture than psychiatrists and physicians. I don't see how these historical circumstances should make me feel any better about a psychologist consulting interrogators about which phobias of a detainee to exploit or how long to enforce solitary confinement or at what point to desecrate the Koran or how long or at what point to hood a detainee.
In your arguments that follow your history, you continue to have some difficulty keeping quotations and attributions straight. In the passages I quoted from the respective policy statements of the AMA and the APA (psychological), it was the AMA---not the APA--statement that allowed its members two possible roles regarding detainees:
- impartial medical care
- "developing interrogation strategies for general training purposes."
Psychologists who participate in interrogations as military Behavioral Science Consultants (BSCs) have only military standards and procedures to guide them—under which they are
authorized to make psychological assessments of the character, personality, social interactions, and other behavioral characteristics of detainees, including interrogation subjects, and, based on such assessments, advise authorized personnel performing lawful interrogations and other lawful detainee operations, including intelligence activities and law enforcement.
This describes participation for psychologists in individual interrogations---not general training.
You write:
If a psychologist, consulting indirectly in the training of interrogators, can help them understand how to obtain information more quickly and with less pain inflicted upon an enemy prisoner, is that in the benefit to our nation’s defense and security?
So inflicting some pain is acceptable? And just how much pain? Please explain what guidelines psychologists have for making such determinations? The APA has not provided any.
You write:
I think part of our challenge, too, in today’s discussion of issues like these is that we focus on the present, short-term situation (”enemy combatants,” which is a slippery slope if I’ve ever heard one), and ignore serious wars like WWII where such training and consultations, to defeat Nazism, was essential to the military’s operation.
Is it somehow short-sighted of me to object to the detention and torture of people not charged with any crime because we might need the ability to do similar things to the likes of Nazis later? Your logic sounds racist to me—as if our largely Arab and Muslim detainee population is somehow disposable for the sake of more "serious wars like WWII."
Let me restate my point about your quotation methods. In your original blog post, you follow the phrase, "the AMA states" with a block quote. Anyone with even a small amount of academic training would assume that the block quote is something that the AMA has said. But instead, it is something that the APA's Stephen Behnke said.
Further, I used the phrase, "I believe," in order to advance an opinion about one particular phrase—not to characterize my entire, fact based argument. That is obvious in my writing. It is a fact that AMA policy only allows physicians to "participate in developing interrogation strategies for general training purposes." You can quibble with me about what kind of training physicians are allowed to offer interrogators. It is clear, however, that physicians are not allowed to participate—directly or indirectly—in individual interrogations. Psychologists are allowed and they do.
The difference in policy is huge. It is has grave consequences. Psychologists are allowed to participate in individual interrogations in a non-healing capacity. "They employ their professional training not in a provider patient relationship, but in relation to a person who is the subject of a lawful governmental inquiry, assessment, investigation, interrogation, adjudication, or other proper action" (DOD Instruction, 6 June 2006). Psychologists have no professional guidelines for how to behave in this setting. They are supposed to oppose torture, but what constitutes torture has been left wide open for interpretation.
You can find all of my quotations and the sources for them back at the rebuttal I wrote on Hungry Blues.
John Grohol's response to my rebuttal of his blog post, "How Different Are the Associations' Policies on Torture?"
John M. Grohol, Psy.D. Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 9:27 pmTo understand the APA’s stance on this issue (and don’t confuse my trying to understand this as either speaking for the APA or defending their position), one has to understand the history of the APA (which I’m sure you do, so this is just for our readers who may or may not know APA’s history). It’s very existence and growth was due to its influence and help with the U.S. military during World War I in intelligence testing.
In 1918, in his APA presidential address, the psychologist Robert Yerkes said:
In this country, for the first in the history of our science, a general organization in the interests of certain ideal and practical aims has been effected. Today, American psychology is placing a highly trained and eager personnel at the service of our military organizations. We are acting not individually but collectively on the basis of common training and common faith in the practical value of our work (Yerkes, 1918).
Without the military’s help at that time, and later in WWII and its acceptance of psychologists as legitimate professionals in healthcare, there’s some question as to whether the psychological profession would have become the recognized and respected professionals and clinicians they are today.
More recently, the military was also the first governmental agency to allow psychologists to prescribe medications. This was an important stepping-stone to gaining prescription privileges in a state-by-state effort. While gaining very slow acceptance, the APA owes the military a hat tip in this effort for opening the door.
Which is not to say that the APA should just blindly accept whatever the military wants psychologists to do. I don’t see their position of anything of the sort. I don’t believe for a moment that two large, unwieldy beaucracies such as the APA and military could ever conspire in a quid-pro-quo relationship of this nature. I’m just noting that the history of the APA plays an important role into understanding the dynamics of this organization (as compared to the AMA, for instance) and the U.S. military. Ignoring the history could lead one to believe that they are acting out of shallow, short-term motives.
Which brings me to an interesting hypothetical… If a psychologist, consulting indirectly in the training of interrogators, can help them understand how to obtain information more quickly and with less pain inflicted upon an enemy prisoner, is that in the benefit to our nation’s defense and security?
I think part of our challenge, too, in today’s discussion of issues like these is that we focus on the present, short-term situation (”enemy combatants,” which is a slippery slope if I’ve ever heard one), and ignore serious wars like WWII where such training and consultations, to defeat Nazism, was essential to the military’s operation.
As an aside, I should note that the APA’s informational article (of which I can’t see how anyone didn’t realize I was quoting from it, given I was linking to it in the first paragraph, but a lesson learned for me nonetheless) about the comparisons between organizations was written before the AMA clarified and tightened its own standard. I should also note that I think, tellingly, you said it all in your comment right here:
The proper interpretation of the AMA language, I believe, is that AMA members may participate in developing general strategies that will help interrogators respect the human rights of detainees. [emphasis added]
It’s all a matter of beliefs and interpretation as to how much these policies differ. Because until someone is called up on disciplinary action in both of these organizations for the same issue, we’ll never know how much they really differ in reality.
Yerkes, R.M. (1918). Psychology in relation to the war. Psychological Review, 25: 85-115.
BLOG POSTS
COMMENTS
PODCASTS
I too am struck by how indebted Mr. Grohol, and I assume other psychologists, feel to the U.S. military. Hardly a basis for an “arms length” relationship. So you’d have to wonder just how likely they would be to intervene if an interrogation went beyond simply asking questions with is all that is allowed under international military law.
I am particularly troubled by the phrase “obtain information more quickly and with less pain inflicted.” The Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions prohibit any pain being inflicted, as do the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the UN Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners!
The Third Geneva Convention which covers the treatment of enemy POWs provides that while they are POWs the detaining power may interrogate them but POWs are only required to provide their names, date of birth, [and if applicable] their rank and serial number under questioning. POWs, cannot be punished if they do not.
The U.S. government has claimed that prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay are “enemy combatants” not POWs as defined by the Third Geneva Convention. This is legally dubious, but even if you accept this then they are protected by the Fourth Convention covering civilians. The Conventions do not allow detained persons to fall through the cracks. They must be protected by either the Third or Fourth Convention.
The Fourth Convention provided that they are protected from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as set out under international human rights, and customary international law. And Article 2 of the Convention against Torture states:
It also needs to be pointed out that if there is any doubt about the status of detained persons then a “competent tribunal” to determine individually whether detainees are entitled to prisoner-of-war status must be convened. AFAIK, not one of the persons detained either at Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib has had his status determined by a “competent tribunal.” Until such a determination is made they must be afforded POW status under the Third Convention.
I don’t understand his reference to:
I very much doubt that any “Nazi,” by which I assume he means German POW, was tortured in the way prisoners in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have been!