P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -1-

Transcription

1 2017 Section C (OS) Participation in National Security Findings Substantive and Procedural Issues in APA s Policy on Torture: A review of the Hoffman Report and its implications for professional psychology C-1 C-2 Disclaimer: Dr. Knapp This is a complex set of events involving many people over a period of 15 years. Cost $5 Million Dr. Samuel Knapp has generously made his simplified version of the issues available and, along with the Hoffman Report and other APA documents, has been a primary source for this section C-3 C-4 Cost $5 Million Division 19 Task Force, among others, presents another side of the story JANUARY 5, 2016 Attacks on Hoffman Report From Military Psychologists MORE LATER C-5 C-6 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -1-

2 APA Severance Packages Thomas, 2015 Numerous firings Some important people leaving early Severance packages totaling $2.5 Million, p. 2 Environment During the Crisis C-7 C-8 Reviewing the Material The War on Terror U.S. military tortured enemy combatants Some military psychologists acted to stop this Other military psychologists participated in torture directly Caution reviewing relevant material: Details can be found in public documents Details are disturbing, upsetting and shocking Consider this when / if reviewing online material C-9 C-10 Torture Techniques Being Criticized Sleep deprivation Water boarding Known as enhanced interrogations Legal at the time Generally considered torture by most international bodies and American legal scholars Not considered torture under 2001 administration Questions and Ethical Issues Did APA (or its representatives) help create an atmosphere allowing torture to occur? Did they fail to act sufficiently to stop torture when it became known? C-11 C-12 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -2-

3 Answers commissioned by APA in 2014 concluded the answer to both questions was YES Although, the APA Council of Representatives repeatedly passed anti-torture resolutions and policy statements C-13 Formal Accusations Accusation 1 APA Ethics code was changed in 2002 to allow psychologists to use torture techniques Either at request of DoD or influenced by DoD This accusation was determined to be completely FALSE C-14 Accusation 1: Hoffman Report CONCLUSIONS APA Ethics Code was not changed to allow psychologists to participate in torture We did not see evidence [that ethics code revisions] were a response to, motivated by, or in any way linked to the attacks of September 11th or the subsequent war on terror. Nor did we see evidence that they were the product of collusion with the government to support terror. (Hoffman, p. 55) Formal Accusations Accusation 2 DoD influenced APA policy to allow psychologists to use torture techniques Enhanced interrogations To curry favor with the current administration Accusation 3 APA staff worked with DoD to deflect criticism of APA policy C-15 C-16, p. 9 Accusations 2: Hoffman Report CONCLUSIONS Key APA officials DID COLLUDE with important DoD officials So that APA could issue high-level, loose ethical guidelines that did not constrain DoD in any greater fashion than existing DoD interrogation guidelines and To defeat efforts by the APA Council of Representatives to introduce and pass resolutions that would have definitely prohibited psychologists from participating in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and other U.S. detention centers. C-17 Accusations 3: Hoffman Report CONCLUSIONS APA worked too closely with DoD to deflect criticism of practices APA s motive to curry favor with DoD was enhanced by personal relationships between APA staff members and DoD personnel, an important conflict of interest that was intentionally ignored (p. 11) C-18 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -3-

4 Formal Accusations Accusation 4 Ethics adjudication against psychologists accused of torture failed to follow due process Accusation 4: Hoffman Report CONCLUSIONS Adjudications were NOT conducted properly Which led to a perception there was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the process C-19 C-20 Sequece of Events APA commissioned David Hoffman of Sidley Austin to investigate allegations independently released Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) The PENS Report 2004 APA Presidential task force Established after discussions with DoD psychologists Formed to establish rules for psychologists participating in interrogations Met in three days to draft report C-21 C-22 The PENS Report Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) APA addressed the role of psychology and psychologists in interrogations and will further develop resources to provide ethics consultation to psychologists who work with classified information in national security-related settings. C-23 The PENS Report Psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer training in torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading practice. (PENS, 2005, p. 4) C-24 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -4-

5 Two Former APA Presidents Comment On the Hoffman Report Koocher & Levant, 2015 Former presidents of APA Is torture, abuse, demeaning treatment or cruel behavior ever acceptable or ethical acceptable to a psychologist? Absolutely not. (p. 6) C-25 Problems with Creation of PENS Did not receive wide input from broad APA membership Did not receive input from stakeholders International Red Cross, Amnesty International, APA members C-26 Problems with PENS Report Three civilians on task force voted for it All had the understanding it would be an interim position Agreed APA would publish case book Specific applications for psychologists Response after PENS Credible accounts continued regarding psychologist s involvement in detainee abuse Some responded to PENS report with defensiveness Baseless, bullying, false, and defaming (Hoffman, p. 2) C-27 C-28 Response after PENS No casebook was developed as originally promised Casebook was eventually made 2011 PENS was adopted as final report Rather than interim report as previously agreed upon APA and DoD Involvement APA endorsed McCain amendment prohibiting torture But APA staff had non-public discussions with DoD about: DoD approval of such measures Sometimes involving DoD in the actual wording used in these resolutions Done without public knowledge C-29 C-30 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -5-

6 Ethics Adjudication Proceedings of Ethics Committee adjudications were not conducted in the usual manner Appearance of a deliberate attempt to circumvent the process Ethics Adjudication Examples: One complainant was told that a particular psychologist was not a member APA only has jurisdiction over actual members Indicating the complaint could not be pursued Reality: He was a member when the complaint came in C-31 C-32 Reactions to Hoffman Report Extreme shock and dismay Much anger Personal attacks Mob mentality (PH) Calls for more punishment Disillusionment Cynicism C-33 Reactions to Hoffman Report Not all responses are backed by fact Much jumping to conclusions Reactions should be anchored in public welfare and ethical principles C-34 Reactions to Hoffman Report Positive Results: New commitment to identify and correct the problems Changes to APA governance Refocus APA on its primary goals Recognition most of APA is not involved Reactions to Hoffman Report National Latino/a Psychological Association Call for caution No one document contains all of the facts and, therefore, reading broadly promotes a balanced perspective. (p. 2) C-35 C-36 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -6-

7 Personal Communication: Samuel Knapp: Many of the allegations turned out to be false or exaggerated. Other allegations, even if not criminal or unethical, showed insensitivity or poor judgment. APA Division 19 Military Psychologists Response to November 9, 2015 Disagreed Strongly with Findings APA Division 19 The Society for Military Psychology C-37 C-38 APA Division 19 Rebuttal See website for numerous rebuttal documents from Division 19 hoffman-report.html C-39 C-40 APA Town Hall Meeting APA Resets Moral Compass APA Monitor, 2015 C-41 C-42 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -7-

8 APA Monitor, 2015, p. 11 APA Resets Moral Compass APA Monitor, 2015, pp Board of Directors voted to approve: Immediate oversight in processing ethics complaints Review of current ethics adjudication procedures Transparency in ethics office procedures C-43 C-44 APA Resets Moral Compass APA Monitor, 2015, pp Board of Directors voted to approve: Conflict of interest policies will be observed On-going updates to members Clear public policies for appointing special task force members APA Resets Moral Compass APA Monitor, 2015, pp Board of Directors voted to approve: Appropriate balance of autonomy and oversight by CEO Increased engagement in human rights Office of Human Rights will be established C-45 C-46 Sum Up Questions All the accusations from the Hoffman Report were found to be true. TRUE or FALSE ANSWER: FALSE Sum Up Questions What was the purpose of the PENS report (Psychological Ethics and National Security)? ANSWER: Formed to establish rules for psychologists interrogations participating in C-47 C-48 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -8-

9 American Psychological Association (2005). Report of the APA Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. The PENS Report Retrieved from Anton, B. (2015). Personal Statement related to APA and. Retrieved 9/23/15 response.pdf APA Ethics Committee. (2011 June). Responses of the APA Ethics Committee to questions, comments, and vignettes. Retrieved from (this may be removed shortly) Hoffman, D. H., Carter, D. J., Viglucci Lopez, C. R., Benzmiller, H. L., Guo, A. X., Lafti, S. Y., & Craig, D. C. (). Report of the Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association: Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture. C-49 C-50 Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2004). A principlebased interpretation of the 2002 American Psychological Association ethics code. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41, Koocher, G. & Levant, R. (July 14, 2015). Comments on. Downloaded from the_hoffman_report_7_14.docx.pdf NLPA. (2015). NLPA Response to APA s independent Review (aka Hoffman Report). Retrieved from o%20the%20apa%20hoffman%20report%20final%20fo r%20release.pdf C-51 The Monitor on Psychology. (September, 2015). APA takes strong action in response to independent review. Monitor on Psychology, 46(8), The Guardian. Retrieved 9/23/15 Thomas, J. (Sept-Oct, 2015). APA Adopts United Nations/Geneva Rules Defining Torture. The National Psychologist, pp C-52 Vasquez, M. (2015). : Resetting APA s moral compass. Welch, B. (2011, May 5). Torture, psychology, and Daniel Inouye. Retrieved August 5, 2015 from Zimbardo, P. (2007). Thoughts on psychologists, ethics, and the use of torture in interrogations: Don t ignore varying roles and complexities. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7, C-53 P. Harmell, Copyright, 2017 Section C -9-