As Congress prepares to investigate the role of their colleagues' torture of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and CIA "black sites," the American Psychological Association (APA) has refused to condemn participation by APA members in abusive interrogations.
Indeed, a secret APA task force concluded in 2006 that psychologists involved in these dubious programs provide "a valuable and ethical role to a system protecting our nation, other nations, and innocent civilians from harm." However, as Salon's Mark Benjamin learned, "six of the 10 psychologists that APA president Gerald Koocher helped select to draft the ethics report had close ties to the military, including four who'd been involved with the handling of detainees at Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib, or who'd served in Afghanistan."
This should come as no surprise since the APA according to David Goodman,
...aggressively lobbies on behalf of psychologists and research centers for funding from the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the DOD Counterintelligence Field Activity. In FY 2003, DOD spending on behavioral, cognitive, and social science research stood at about $405 million. (Mother Jones, "The Enablers," March 1, 2008)
Money like this buys a lot of complicity--and silence. It also testifies to the strength of a seamless collusive web binding together academics, psychologists and the Pentagon: an unholy alliance that validate wider U.S. geopolitical goals as its wages aggressive wars worldwide.
While the military and the CIA place "boots on the ground" in foreign climes inhospitable to imperialist resource extractors, it falls to intelligence "specialists," say APA members, to "guide" interrogators towards "favorable outcomes:" smashing all resistance.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
Historian Christopher Simpson analyzed the central role that CIA and Pentagon funding of communication research and psychological warfare played in the post-war period. It isn't a pretty picture. According to Simpson,
Research funding cannot by itself create a sustainable academic zeitgeist, of course. Sponsorship can, however, underwrite the articulation, elaboration, and development of a favored set of preconceptions, and in that way improve its competitive position in ongoing rivalries with alternative constructions of academic reality. ... U.S. military, propaganda, and intelligence agencies favored an approach to the early study of mass communication that offered both an explanation of what communication "is" (at least insofar as those agencies' missions were concerned) and a box of tools for examining it. Put most simply, they saw mass communication as an instrument for persuading or dominating targeted groups. (Science of Coercion, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 5-6)
And therein lies the rub: for the CIA "a favored set of preconceptions" vis a vis "enhanced" interrogation (torture) is one that seeks to "break" the minds of their hapless victims in order to cough-up information viewed as "vital" by military and political bureaucracies fighting endless wars "to keep America safe."
Like all intellectual constructs that seek to defend the indefensible this is nothing new, nor is the APA's collaboration with the intelligence "community." Long before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the CIA had already devised a monstrous set of "metrics" to extract information from resistance fighters and innocent civilians in a score of Cold War battleground states.
With the 1997 partial declassification of the CIA's 1963 torture manual, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, we gain valuable insight into the role played by APA practitioners of "non-coercive" interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay and other "black sites." While the question of "reverse-engineering" the U.S. military's SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) program for captured American troops and Special Forces operatives behind enemy lines has gained notoriety, the broader issue of American psychology's earlier collaboration in designing KUBARK has been given short-shrift.
Indeed, SERE itself built upon and expanded KUBARK's brief: designing an optimal set of conditions to make people talk. In the case of SERE, it is a matter of preparing troops to talk in certain evasive ways, thereby bettering their chances for survival.
A "reverse-engineered" SERE is another matter entirely: these techniques in the hands of "skilled" practitioners become coercive methods for breaking captives. By shifting the locus from physical to psychological torture, the APA along with Bush regime criminals, attempt to dodge altogether the issue of psychological torture as torture. Setting the interrogation table so to speak, inquisitors draw from a psychometric "toolbox" designed to enhance the "subject's" sense of isolation as a means to induce fear, compliance and ultimately, capitulation. The KUBARK authors' theorize:
In A Question of Torture, historian Alfred W. McCoy refers to this technique as "self-inflicted pain," and argues that the CIA, recognizing the futility of its earlier MKULTRA program that searched for a "magic bullet" that would render subjects susceptible to manipulation through drugs (LSD, mescaline, thorazine, etc.), Agency Mengele's sought instead to devise ever-more devilish methods to break the will, even if it meant destroying the mind. One such technique is prolonged isolation. KUBARK summarize their findings thusly:
Amongst the bibliographic contributors cited in KUBARK were a number of researchers and institutes identified by Simpson and others that were directly funded by the CIA and the Pentagon, these included: the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology; Public Opinion Quarterly; Bureau of Social Science Research Inc.; AMA Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry; Sociometry; the infamous Allan Memorial Institute of Dr. D. Ewen Cameron of "psychic-driving" infamy.
The isolation techniques cited above have been upgraded by newer "refinements" that play upon specific cultural anxieties and taboos of current Guantánamo and "black site" detainees and are features drawn from CIA/Pentagon contractors such as Spokane-based Mitchell Jessen & Associates soon themselves to be subjects of Congressional inquiry.
According Mark Benjamin,
But it may not be Congress alone that serves notice to the APA. The ACLU has warned the association, according to Mother Jones, that participation in "cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation of detainees is not only unethical but illegal, and may subject APA members to legal liability or even prosecution."
Let's hope so.
The term non-coercive is used above to denote methods of interrogation that are not based upon the coercion of an unwilling subject through the employment of superior force originating outside himself. However, the non-coercive interrogation is not conducted without pressure. On the contrary, the goal is to generate maximum pressure, or at least as much as is needed to induce compliance. The difference is that the pressure is generated inside the interrogatee. His resistance is sapped, his urge to yield is fortified, until in the end he defeats himself. [emphasis added]
In A Question of Torture, historian Alfred W. McCoy refers to this technique as "self-inflicted pain," and argues that the CIA, recognizing the futility of its earlier MKULTRA program that searched for a "magic bullet" that would render subjects susceptible to manipulation through drugs (LSD, mescaline, thorazine, etc.), Agency Mengele's sought instead to devise ever-more devilish methods to break the will, even if it meant destroying the mind. One such technique is prolonged isolation. KUBARK summarize their findings thusly:
1. The more completely the place of confinement eliminates sensory stimuli, the more rapidly and deeply will the interrogatee be affected. Results produced only after weeks or months of imprisonment in an ordinary cell can be duplicated in hours or days in a cell which has no light (or weak artificial light which never varies), which is sound-proofed, in which odors are eliminated, etc. An environment still more subject to control, such as water-tank or iron lung, is even more effective.
2. An early effect of such an environment is anxiety. How soon it appears and how strong it is depends upon the psychological characteristics of the individual.
3. The interrogator can benefit from the subject's anxiety. As the interrogator becomes linked in the subject's mind with the reward of lessened anxiety, human contact, and meaningful activity, and thus with providing relief for growing discomfort, the questioner assumes a benevolent role.
4. The deprivation of stimuli induces regression by depriving the subject's mind of contact with an outer world and thus forcing it in upon itself. At the same time, the calculated provision of stimuli during interrogation tends to make the regressed subject view the interrogator as a father-figure. The result, normally, is a strengthening of the subject's tendencies toward compliance.
Amongst the bibliographic contributors cited in KUBARK were a number of researchers and institutes identified by Simpson and others that were directly funded by the CIA and the Pentagon, these included: the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology; Public Opinion Quarterly; Bureau of Social Science Research Inc.; AMA Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry; Sociometry; the infamous Allan Memorial Institute of Dr. D. Ewen Cameron of "psychic-driving" infamy.
The isolation techniques cited above have been upgraded by newer "refinements" that play upon specific cultural anxieties and taboos of current Guantánamo and "black site" detainees and are features drawn from CIA/Pentagon contractors such as Spokane-based Mitchell Jessen & Associates soon themselves to be subjects of Congressional inquiry.
According Mark Benjamin,
Isolation in cramped cells is also a key tenet of SERE training, according to soldiers who have completed the training and described it in detail to Salon. The effects of isolation are a specialty of Jessen's, who taught a class on "coping with isolation in a hostage environment" at a Maui seminar in late 2003, according to a Washington Times article published then. (Defense Department documents from the late 1990s describe Jessen as the "lead psychologist" for the SERE program.) Mitchell also spoke at that conference, according to the article. It described both men as "contracted to Uncle Sam to fight terrorism."
Mitchell's name surfaced again many months later. His role in interrogations was referenced briefly in a July 2005 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer, which focused largely on the military's use of SERE-based tactics at Guantánamo. The article described Mitchell's participation in a CIA interrogation of a high-value prisoner in March 2002 at an undisclosed location elsewhere -- presumably a secret CIA prison known as a "black site" -- where Mitchell urged harsh techniques that would break down the prisoner's psychological defenses, creating a feeling of "helplessness." But the article did not confirm Mitchell was a CIA employee, and it explored no further the connection between Mitchell's background with SERE and interrogations being conducted by the CIA. (Salon, "The CIA's Torture Teachers, June 21, 2007)
But it may not be Congress alone that serves notice to the APA. The ACLU has warned the association, according to Mother Jones, that participation in "cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation of detainees is not only unethical but illegal, and may subject APA members to legal liability or even prosecution."
Let's hope so.
[Cross-posted on Antifascist Calling...]
6 comments:
thank you for posting this. i have been trying to frame such a post myself, and feel ashamed that i have not been able to bring myself to do so, as this is my chosen profession, and the scandal sickens me. all the more so because i count gerry koocher as an acquaintance/friend, and quite honestly find him to be a fine man of great integrity.
however, his stance on all this has stupefied me. when i first saw it highlighted on democracynow! over three years ago, i alerted him to it, and was aghast at his response. i found it legalistic, and did not understand - despite his protestations - why our organization could not take the same clear and definitive position as the american psychiatric association and the ama (as well as their counterparts in canada and britain).
but, for reasons too complex to go into here, i decided to just let the issue drop between us; agree to disagree, i said, and moved along.
the entire issue may the undoing of the apa, which leaves me with very mixed feelings. as an organization, i feel it's lost its true purpose and requires overhaul. but it is quite sad to see the foundational group of my profession meet such an unnecessary and unseemly demise.
all that being said, i do want to insist on a correction, and then make a point. the correction is this: you, antifascist, have committed an error that is commonly made throughout this scandal. you have conflated all psychologists with the apa. this is not surprising; i'm not positive about this, but i suspect that all physicians are members of the ama. however, this is not true of psychologists; in fact, very few psychologists are members of the apa.
being a psychologist does NOT automatically mean, or even require, membership in the apa. in fact, though it's become more a group of clinical psychologists (those who see patients; hardly any experimental psychologists are members), i know many many clinical psychologists who are not members. i am even considering dropping my membership for reasons of their torture stance (i have kept it this long for those same complicated reasons i choose not to share here), as have scores of others.
the fact is, the official apa position is that any member accused of committing such atrocities (as are listed in the presidential list; more on that distinction in a sec) will be investigated, and if found guilty, will be banned from membership. a corollary fact is that no such member of the apa has ever been so accused; no one knows the names of these guys, and i know they're not members. mitchell and the other 'psychologists' listed as perpetrators of the instructions and training are not members, and i don't think they ever have been. it's not even clear if these guys are licensed anywhere, and that would be the way to destroy their ability to 'practice'; but why would they need a clinical license to see 'patients' in any state? they don't even see patients! because the military has given them blanket support, they don't NEED any of the standard credentials society has in place to keep charlatans and abusers from practicing.
the aclu threat against the apa is a good one, but i don't think the apa is nervous, because they claim they would ban them instantly as members one was ever exposed. you see, i guarantee you that none of these criminals are members of the apa. they don't need to be members! if they're working for the military, all their benefits and protections are covered; this is all the apa is good for, frankly, and they're not even necessary for that.
another point you need to clear up: several times in your post you reference 'apa practitioners' and 'american psychologists'. you need to know, and you need to make this distinction in the form of a correction, that these are NOT - and i repeat NOT - one and the same. to be an american psychologist does NOT mean you are a member of the apa. period. and, as i allude to in the previous graf, very few of the apa members are the experimental psychologists, who would be the kind of psychologists who would have assisted in the interrogation designs you describe. as far as i know, there has never been any official policy position in support of interrogation research or the like made by the apa. the fact that the military funded several lines of experimentation done by psychologists HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE APA! you really need to understand this, and so do your readers.
this is not to defend the apa position on this topic; i have always found it mystifying and i suspect it has way too much to do with quid pro quo on other matters, such as prescription privileges and billing latitude. which brings me to a sort of an understanding by way of historical background. but please, do NOT take this as my way of excusing the apa, or psychologists, for that matter. i find the situation beyond disturbing and am doing what i can to make corrections within the system. at least, at this point. still...
the deal is this, because psychology as a science and practice is so young (one century old; think about that), it is like the bastard child of medicine, and is most often quite bluntly treated as such. psychologists make far less money in hospital settings than do physicians, are low on all the various totem poles (research, job standing, promotions, positions of authority, etc.) and pecking orders. physicians often smile with dripping condescension when dealing with psychologists, and it has been crippling on a number of levels. most dangerously, it has kept the profession from exploring and exploiting its greatest potential, a great loss to the public. but most obviously, it has tempted most practitioners to become the (ok, here it comes; please forgive me, but there is just no better metaphor for this phenomenon) niggers of the healthcare profession.
there are at least two ways those at the bottom can deal with their fate; one is to simply persevere with dignity, which many psychologists do, and with good results. i can say that when i left the hospital setting several years ago, the attitude of the best doctors was changing noticeably to one of deeper respect for what psychologists had to offer.
the other way, though, that professionals can respond is to become uncle toms. they go begging and defer and become completely dependent on those they perceive to be their 'masters'; in their pursuit to overcome their slavery, they become even more enslaved.
we've seen this happen before for all those we've deemed as the 'niggers' of whatever realm we can choose; feminists become masculine feminazis, blacks become alan keyes, and students become professors. and the US has become its own worst nightmare. seems to be a human flaw.
i think something along these lines is going on with psychology, and has been going on for so long that the attitudes have become unconscious, and the alliances required to achieve the goals have become so deeply engrained in the zeitgeist, that few within the higher levels of the system even realize what is going on.
again, not an excuse, but something of an explanation. you just don't see this in the ama; they've been around since before the bar and so possess and exhibit supreme confidence. they have no one to prove themselves to.
so whereas the ama and its fellow groups are confident to ban the entire consideration of these interrogations, the apa feels it must appease its 'master' and parrot the same list of techniques as the president does. it's sick, no mistake about it, but there it is.
still, i would encourage you to get very clear about the role of the apa with regard to practitioners of psychology. your post exposes that you are unaware of that relationship, and how thin it is. you are doing a huge disservice to the practice of psychology by conflating these and not being clear about the distinction. your post also leaves out the extremely important fact that a huge number of apa members, in addition to psychologists who are not members, have protested vehemently against the apa's position on torture; this fact would i think even add to the main points you are trying to make. but you are doing your own investigation a disservice by not being precise on these things. your work is always so stellar that i cannot help but want you to sharpen this up; please do.
again, though, thanks for posting this; it's very important.
Great post Dr. Elswere.
I just wanted to point out that psychological torture is far more permanent and damaging than even extreme physical torture. I think that many people who have a General Paton mentality when it comes to psychological stress: "It's all in your head", do not think of mental anguish as possessing any consequences. Remember Paton's famous slapping the soldier in WWII suffering from obvious PTSD. I think many in the military services and in the Bush administration (certainly Bush himself) are really incapable of understanding how psychological torture is far more pernicious and immoral even than physical torture.
Peace,
Bob
Dear dr. elsewhere,
Your points are well-taken. I did not mean to conflate all psychologists and all APA members with its board and bureaucracy. I'm aware there has been substantial opposition within the organization to the board's complicit attitudes and collaboration with the military on various "black programs," including "enhanced interrogations," i.e., torture, not to mention their ham-handedness vis a vis moves to ram it down the throats of the membership.
Psychology is not alone in this regard. Other disciplines, including anthropology, have allowed themselves to be handmaids of the Pentagon, especially regarding the cultural context they provide interrogators for getting inside detainees heads.
I forgot that Mitchell & Jessen are NOT APA members. Consider this a correction on that point.
If I gave the impression that all, or even a substantial majority of APA members support these programs through omissions you've pointed out, then, my sincere apologies.
Please understand, I approach issues from a political and historical perspective; this is to say, I try to go for "big picture" analysis. The pitfalls with this approach are apparent. But having said that, I must point out, when I write about, say Argentine death squads during the "dirty war" period, I don't analyze oppositional trends such as the Playa de Mayo Mothers. I hope you see what I'm getting at. With limited space, a coherent piece has to hit the relevant facts first, particularly for a general readership.
The points I was trying to make, which I think I did, were that all too often the allure of dodgy research dollars from the state, are used for the most nefarious purposes. If you haven't read Christopher Simpson's "Science of Coercion," then I recommend it. You will note, I did not say APA helped design the CIA's KUBARK manual. Having said that however, SOME American psychologists did participate and the CIA drew from the research they funded. This is an inescapable fact, as did psychiatrists and physicians.
Your point differentiating between clinical- as opposed to research psychologists is also well-taken.
Thanks for taking the opportunity to point out these differences and distinctions, I will certainly not neglect them in the future!
Very nice exchange, guys. Psychology and fascism came about and evolved at the same time, more or less, didn't they?
dear antifascist,
i do hope i was not too ham-fisted about these points. and i did not mean to imply that you necessarily harbored the errors as facts. actually, i assumed you were likely aware on some level of these subtleties but the distinctions did not come across. i just felt they need to come across, either subtly or overtly.
again, i am so grateful you posted this, as it is so important, and i found i could not bring myself to actually do the work and endure the agony it would bring. it was a little odd to find myself in some bizarre way actually defending psychologists. but there a great many very good ones, and too many who remain unaware of all these things.
on this note, bob, thanks for you compliment, but i do want to emphasize that it was antifascist who posted this piece; mine was just a comment on it, albeit way long for a comment! and your point about psych damage being more devastating than physical is well-taken, and actually brings up an insight i've been working on. given that this is the case, one would think that the pecking order i referred to above might be reversed.
i hasten to add to that, though, that i would not recommend this happening until many many very serious and substantive changes are made in the credentialing and monitoring of the practice, both clinical and experimental (which again references the sideshow of which i refuse to speak, but ....whaever).
Seems the prisoners aren't the only ones suffering. Debbie Nathan over at Counterpunch has an article entitled A Nightmare World of Torture and Prison Guard Suicides--Confessions of a Gitmo Guard.
Post a Comment