Human Rights Law

Cautionary letter to American Psychological Association President Kazdin

By stephen soldz

Dear  President Kazdin:

We,  Jean Maria Arrigo and Mike Wessells, are writing in response to news of your  formation of the Presidential Advisory Group on the Implementation of the  Petition Resolution. With this committee,  the APA has a new opportunity to unite the organization by effectively  implementing the policies widely adopted by vote of the membership.

Yet  we also see that setting up the organizational structure, charge, and guidelines  for communication and transparency warrants caution. As members of the 2005  Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics in National Security (PENS), we wish to warn of certain procedural  irregularities in the PENS process that are potential pitfalls for successful  implementation of the referendum. These irregularities led to a fraudulent  process that undermined the ostensible purpose of PENS:  to develop ethical  guidelines for psychologists in national security interrogations.

It  appears to us that the fraudulent PENS process was the root cause of many of the  APA's difficulties in the past three years because it prevented true  deliberation. As much as anything else, it deprived thoughtful, honest advocates  for psychologists' involvement in interrogations of the opportunity to present a  credible case for their position.

Many  of the stakeholders to the PENS process are involved in the Implementation  process, directly or indirectly. It is  therefore crucial that the actual Implementation process - as opposed to the  public face of the process - be transparent, fair, and deliberative. To illustrate both the subtlety and the  gravity of violations in the PENS procedures, and the potential for violations  in the Implementation process, we offer four examples from among a dozen that  equally de-legitimized the PENS effort. All of these can be substantiated. Not  one has been publicly acknowledged by APA authorities. There were other- in some  ways more dramatic and egregious-violations of independent, democratic process,  but the following examples particularly signal risks to the work of the new  Advisory Committee.

1. As  psychologists we are aware that majority influence plays a great role in group  decision-making. The undisclosed "observers" to the PENS task force meeting  included: the Assistant Director of Social, Behavioral, and Educational Sciences  for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; the Executive  Director for APA Science Policy; a second APA Science Policy staff member; a  former National Security Agency psychologist and former director of the Navy  Internship Program; and the Director of the APA Practice Directorate. At least  the first four of these five had been closely involved in securing  defense-related funding for APA programs. And all received the PENS listserv  communications. Their presence and involvement was inconsistent with what anyone  would understand by the "public face" of the PENS task force.

2. An  APA Board liaison to the PENS task force was the first to suggest that the  Director of the APA Practice Directorate attend the PENS meeting as an  "observer," because, as he wrote on the pre-meeting PENS listserv, "this TF has  direct implications for practice." In the morning of the first day of the June  26-29, 2005 task force meeting, it was this same Board liaison who proposed  confidentiality of the task force proceedings, although no sensitive issues had  yet arisen. This subtle intrusion by the APA Board exceeds the official role of  Board liaison.

3. The Director of the APA Practice Directorate indeed attended, but not as  mere observer. This Director articulated the task force mission as "putting out  the fires" of controversy at APA, rather than resolving complex questions in  psychological ethics. With cooperation from the task force chair (who was  simultaneously vice-chair of the APA Ethics Committee), the Director steered the  task force toward policy to be made in extreme haste, secrecy, with only an  appearance of unanimity, and with no concrete examples to substantiate the  policy.

Further the Director of the Practice  Directorate was married to a BSCT psychologist who had served at Guantánamo, one  of the theaters of concern to the task force. His spouse was closely involved with Army Surgeon General Kiley and,  along with two other task force members, was part of the almost immediate  military review of the PENS report with General Kiley. Other task force members  employed by the military and intelligence agencies and APA task force organizers  were surely aware of these profound conflicts of interest, although the Director  disclosed no such influential relationships at the meeting.

4. As  is now publicly known, one military member of the task force had been involved  in the so-called "reverse engineering" of the Survival Evasion Resistance and  Escape (SERE) training program to produce  abusive techniques for terror suspects and prisoners of war. At least one of his  colleagues on the task force was certainly aware of his severe conflict of  interest. Further, four of the task force members served in the chains of  command that had been accused of abuses.

The  PENS process generated cadres of fierce critics of APA policy, whose researches  eventually exposed many of the specific instances and mechanisms of fraud. These  same cadres of APA members, international psychologists, human rights scholars,  and journalists have their eyes on the Implementation process.

To  fulfill the promise of your Presidential Advisory Group on the Implementation of  the Petition Resolution, and because the PENS process so deeply damaged trust in  APA institutional process, we think three things are needed: (a) a fair and  transparent process, (b) committee participants who are free from overt  conflicts of interest (whether disclosed or undisclosed), and (c) a reputable,  independent monitor. We do not at all  question your sincerity. This is not the point. Nevertheless, however far down  the path you feel you are to a fair and transparent process, we urge you to  arrange for a reputable, independent monitor. Such a practice will finally help  put out the fires of controversy at APA over psychological ethics in  interrogations.

Thank you very much  for your time in considering our letter.

Sincerely,

Jean Maria Arrigo,  PhD

Michael Wessells,  PhD

Full post as published by Never In Our Names on November 13, 2008 (boomark / email).