thenation | The public exposure in mid-2004 of a government-sanctioned and highly
bureaucratized program of torture and cruel treatment caused a
political crisis that threatened to derail the Bush administration’s
interrogation and detention policies. In the wake of that crisis, some
American Psychological Association (APA) senior staff members and
leaders colluded, secretly, with officials from the White House, Defense
Department and CIA to enable psychologists’ continuing participation in
interrogations at CIA black sites, Guantánamo, and other overseas
facilities. One result of this collusion was a revision in 2005 of the
APA’s code of ethics for interrogations in order to provide cover for
psychologists working in these facilities.
The participation of psychologists was essential for the CIA’s
torture program to continue during the Bush years. The legal authority
for CIA interrogations was based on then-classified Office of Legal
Counsel memos. The first set of memos, authored by John Yoo, signed by
OLC head Jay Bybee and dated August 1, 2002, were withdrawn in late 2003
by Jack Goldsmith (who replaced Bybee when he became a federal judge).
In June 2004, one of the Yoo/Bybee “torture memos” was leaked to the
press, and public outcry about the legal reasoning—especially among
lawyers—created pressure on the Bush administration to release some
additional legal memos and policy directives relevant to prisoner
policies. In December 2004, acting OLC head Daniel Levin revised the
narrow definition of torture in the Yoo/Bybee memos but reaffirmed their
legal opinions. In the spring of 2005, the CIA requested new legal
opinions to validate the techniques in use, and OLC head Stephen
Bradbury authored three new memos in May. All of these OLC opinions were
a “golden shield” against future prosecutions of officials responsible
for the CIA program. According to Bradbury’s 2005 memos, the involvement
of health professionals in monitoring and assessing the effects of
“enhanced” techniques was necessary in order for them to be considered
legal.
Why was the APA’s secret collusion so essential for continuance of
the program? A key reason was because other physicians and psychiatrists
were increasingly reluctant to participate in national security
interrogations. In June 2005, doctors in the CIA’s Office of Medical
Services refused a new role required by the Bradbury memos to engage in
monitoring and research to determine whether the treatment and
conditions to which a detainee was subjected were cruel, inhumane, and
degrading. In 2006 the American Psychiatric Association and the American
Medical Association passed directives barring their members from
participating in such interrogations on professional ethical grounds.
The APA, in collaboration with the Bush administration, was willing to
allow psychologists to fill the role balked at by other health
professionals.
Details of this collusion—which APA officials have concealed and denied for a decade—are the subject of a new report, All the President’s Psychologists,
authored by Drs. Stephen Soldz and Steven Reisner, and Nathaniel
Raymond. The information comes from 638 e-mails from the accounts of a
RAND Corporation researcher and CIA contractor, Scott Gerwehr, who died
in 2008. James Risen, a New York Times journalist and author, most recently, of Pay Any Price, obtained the e-mails through Freedom of Information Act litigation and shared them with the report’s authors.
0 comments:
Post a Comment