Psychologists split on interrogation aid

Published 9:00 pm Thursday, July 27, 2006

CHICAGO – The American Psychological Association is under fire from some of its members and other professionals for declaring that it is permissible for psychologists to assist in military interrogations.

An online petition against the group’s policy has garnered more than 1,300 signatures from members and other psychologists. Protest forums are being planned for the association’s convention next month in New Orleans. And some members have threatened to withhold dues or quit.

The unrest stems from an association policy, issued last year, that says that while psychologists should not get involved in torture or other degrading treatment, it is ethical for them to act as consultants to interrogation and information-gathering for national security purposes.

That stand troubles some members of the organization in light of the reported U.S. abuses at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and elsewhere.

“The issue is being couched as psychologists helping out with national security at the same time that psychologists are opposed to the issue of torture,” said Chicago psychologist William Gorman, an association member who signed the petition and works with refugee survivors of torture. “That stance in the present context appears to me incongruous.”

The American Medical Association last month adopted what many view as a stronger stand against physician involvement in prisoner interrogation, echoing a position held by the American Psychiatric Association, whose members are medical doctors.

The U.S. military has indicated it will therefore favor using psychologists, who are not medical doctors and are not bound by the other groups’ policies.

Salon.com reported Wednesday that six of the 10 people on the association task force that drafted the policy have close military ties, including four who have worked at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib or in Afghanistan.

New York psychologist Steven Reisner, an association member and vocal opponent of the policy, said those ties make the group’s stance even more troubling.