Tortured logic.

The letter below was sent to the Washington Monthly by Dr. Sharon Brehm, president of the American Psychological Association, and posted on the APA's Web site on January 9, 2007, in reaction to Art Levine's piece "Collective Unconscionable," which appeared in the Monthly's January/February 2007 issue. The letter immediately following Dr. Brehm's, from APA member Frank Summers, was sent to the Monthly in response to her posting.

Regarding "Collective Unconscionable," a few relevant facts that Levine chose not to include in his reporting are:

* The American Psychological Association position on torture is clear and unequivocal. Any direct or indirect participation in any act of torture or other forms of cruel, degrading, or inhuman treatment by psychologists is strictly prohibited. No exceptions! Such acts as water-boarding, sexual humiliation, stress positions, and exploitation of phobias are clear violations of the APA's no torture/no abuse policy.

* The principle of "Do no harm" provides the foundation for the association's resolutions against torture dating back to the mid-1980s. In 1985, APA issued a joint resolution against torture with the American Psychiatric Association. Subsequent resolutions prohibiting any psychologist's involvement in torture have also been adopted by the association in 1986, 2005, and 2006.

* The association's position is rooted in our belief that having psychologists consult with interrogation teams makes an important contribution toward keeping interrogations safe and ethical. Our members have a responsibility to intervene to stop acts of abuse wherever they occur and to report such incidents to the appropriate authorities.

* APA has established procedures in place to investigate and adjudicate possible ethical violations by its members. Any allegations that a member has violated APA's strict prohibition against engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment will be investigated and, if the evidence warrants, adjudicated.

* Furthermore, the association is well aware that tremendous situational pressures often exist when psychologists work in national security settings. Ethical interrogations are based on building a relationship and forming rapport with the person being questioned, whereas abusive techniques are both unethical and ineffective. APA has chosen to stay engaged in the process of working to define and enforce ethical interrogations because we believe that it is the best way to prevent unethical behavior. We know that our members have had a positive effect. For example, one member of the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security intervened to stop abusive detainee treatment at Guantanamo. Another was sent to prevent future abuse at Abu Ghraib when abuse was uncovered there.

Sharon Stephens Brehm, PhD

President

American Psychological Association

Dr. Sharon Brehm, the president of the APA, objected to Levine's article on the basis that he neglected to mention that APA has a policy of opposition to "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" and has procedures to discipline any APA member who is involved in such activity. Reading Dr. Brehm's letter, one would think that APA is interested in ensuring the ethical behavior of psychologists who work in detention centers. Unfortunately, APA's behavior does not support the view expressed by Dr. Brehm.

First, it should be noted that when allegations of ethical breaches by psychologists working in Guantanamo were reported in the media, they were quickly and derisively dismissed as "rumor" by Dr. Brehm's predecessor, Dr. Gerald Koocher, without even a cursory consideration of the substance of the charges. Even more tellingly, it has been documented by a number of sources that an APA member, Dr. John Leso, both consulted to and participated in the torture of Mohamed al-Qahtani. The APA was silent in response to the revelation. When this information was given to the APA, the initial response was denial that Leso was an APA member. To this day, there is no indication the APA has taken any action against Leso. There is not one iota of evidence that the APA leadership has made any effort to take any action to ensure the ethical behavior of psychologists working in Guantanamo or any similar detention center.

Frank Summers, PhD

American Board of Professional Psychology and APA member

Chicago, Ill.

Levine deserves great credit for exposing the corruption of the APA in the interrogations of "terror suspects." The fact that the APA ran from a specific condemnation of torture and a definition of what constitutes torture speaks volumes about its leadership. Beyond this reprehensible omission is the APA's failure to provide leadership in terms of understanding how fear can be manipulated to create torture and abuse. As a member of the APA I am appalled. How we will explain our moral bankruptcy to future generations of psychologists is beyond me.

Douglas L. Polcin

Concord, Calif.

Art Levine responds:

The APA's positions against torture and abusive practices are anything but "clear and unequivocal." It's true that the organization has paid lip service to opposing torture and has objected to the Bush administration's pro-torture proposals, as I acknowledged in the article. However, the practical effect of the APA's policies is to abet torture at unaccountable sites like Guantanamo by allowing members to be involved in interrogations. Both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association bar such participation.

While some APA leaders have occasionally mentioned their opposition to such techniques as waterboarding and stress positions, the APA itself has failed to explicitly condemn such practices by name in any of its formal statements. It hasn't offered guidance to members on these practices in the long-promised, still-unpublished casebook. Nor has it sanctioned any members for their alleged involvement in abuse, or investigated or called for a government or independent investigation into the widely reported role of psychologists in aiding cruel and degrading interrogations. For a full exploration of the APA's sophistry on this topic, I recommend Steve Soldz's article, "Protecting the Torturers: Bad Faith and Distortions From the American Psychological Association," at zmag.com.