APA Ethics and Interrogation
The annual
convention of the American Psychological Association, held August 2007 in
San Francisco, was very active on the question of whether psychologists
should participate in national security interrogation. There was a
"mini-convention" of panels on the issue--I attended about 12 hours of those
and felt they were of exceptionally high quality, with the most diversity of
viewpoints I've ever seen at a convention. The group advocating a complete
ban on participation in settings like Guantánamo where human rights have
been violated was very active throughout the convention, participated in the
drafting of a motion also backed by the APA Board of Directors, and
advocated for a separate motion to completely ban participation.
The Council of
Representatives passed the compromise motion but defeated the complete ban.
The text of the Resolution that passed is at:
Democracy Now
was at many of the events and their programming is at:
Physicians for Human Rights President Len Rubenstein was present for all
the proceedings, and he spoke in panels and at the Town Hall meeting. For
PHR's response to the APA resolution,
click here.
My own
position, after listening to the debates, is that an absolute ban on
participation in these settings is the right choice, but the resolution that
passed can be the basis for a sound ethical practice if it is truly
implemented. The spirit to implement it was clearly evident at the
Convention, but the challenge will be to maintain that, which we can and
should all participate in.