APA strategy of engagement in interrogations has served its purpose Commentary
APA strategy of engagement in interrogations has served its purpose
Edited by:

Stephen Behnke [Director of Ethics, American Psychological Association]: "The American Psychological Association commends the American Civil Liberties Union for its commitment to uncovering details surrounding the treatment of detainees at facilities run by the US government. APA shares the ACLU's resolve to ensure that human rights are protected in all settings throughout the world.

Having read the government documents recently obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act, we find what they reveal about abuse to be abhorrent. The position of the American Psychological Association is clear and unequivocal: There is never a justification for torture or abuse. In carefully reviewing the documents, we note they show that psychologists supporting interrogations "emphasized their separation from detainee medical care," and that a psychologist who suspected abuse "recommended the interrogation not proceed and brought in medical personnel to evaluate the detainee." Based on the information in these documents, APA's strategy of engagement — of having psychologists involved in interrogation processes — served its intended purpose: to stop interrogations that cross the bounds of ethical propriety. According to these documents, non-psychologist health care providers also took action to prevent abuse and protect detainees.

The Washington Post called APA's August 2007 resolution a "rebuke" of the Bush Administration's interrogation policies, by virtue of APA's having condemned and prohibited specific techniques associated with "harsh" interrogations.

For more than two decades, APA has been committed to promoting the humane treatment of detainees. We will adjudicate any allegation that an APA member has engaged in unethical conduct. APA asks that any individual having information that a psychologist has engaged in torture bring this information to the attention of the APA's Ethics Office."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.