Search

This paper comments on Cushman’s “The Earthquake That Is the Hoffman Report on Torture,” placing the paper in the broader context of discussion of the ethics of psychologist involvement in national security interrogations and other military operations. In a preliminary discussion of the Hoffman Report, a few details that Cushman does not get quite right are pointed out. It then discusses the reasons for American Psychological Association leaders’ behavior in this episode and the mechanisms used to deflect attention from what was really happening. Broader issues regarding the appropriate ethical roles for psychologists in national security operations, or “operational psychology,” are then discussed. Along the way issues are raised regarding the appropriate Telos or goal of psychology as a profession and the distinction between science and scientism. While strongly defending science, Cushman’s call for a re-moralizing of psychology is endorsed. The paper ties it all together with a call for a Truth Commission to create a permanent record of the involvement of psychologists and health professionals with the national security state in the wake of 9/11 and to make sure that lessons are learned for future generations of psychologists and citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA's long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors commend Costanzo, Gerrity, and Lykes (2007) and their cogent summary of a number of ethical and scientific considerations relevant to evaluating the proper role of psychologists in national security interrogations of so-called “enemy combatants.” From their careful analysis they derive a series of recommendations for the American Psychological Association (APA) and other psychology-related associations, all of which are quite powerful. While supporting these recommendations, the authors also argue that the logic and evidence presented by Costanzo et al. imply, in current legal, political, and organizational circumstances, that psychologists should play no role in the interrogations process. The authors propose that a “bright line” should separate the profession of psychology completely from national security interrogations. The argument is based partly upon ethical considerations, on the practical knowledge available for documenting psychologist participation in interrogations as members of the so-called Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs) at Guantánamo, evidence from other locations and sources, and equally upon the social psychological research regarding the interrogation process so adroitly summarized by Costanzo et al. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the psychological aspects of the abuses committed by U.S. reservist military police (MPs) against prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in relation to the dynamics of military occupation. It explains a theory of what actually happened at the prison based on newspaper articles and other accounts of abuse throughout U.S. detentions in Iraq. It examines several under emphasized aspects of the war and occupation that contributed to the pervasiveness of the abuse.

Blunts are hollowed-out cigars used to smoke marijuana (and perhaps other substances) in the United States. We investigated rates of blunt use; whether cigar use reported in surveys may actually be blunt use; the relationship of blunt to cigar use; characteristics of blunt users; brands of cigars used to make blunts; and drugs added to blunts. A school-based survey of youth, the Cigar Use Reasons Evaluation (CURE). Eleven schools across Massachusetts. A total of 5016 students in grades 7–12. CURE items assessing blunt, cigar and cigarette use, brands used to make blunts, drugs added to blunts and demographics were used. Life-time blunt use was reported by 20.0% of the sample, with use greater among high school (25.6%) than middle school (11.4%) students, and among males (23.7%) than females (16.6%). Self-reported cigar use rates were not influenced strongly by blunt use being misreported as cigar use. In a multivariate model, blunt use was associated with male gender, higher grade in school, lower GPA, truancy, lower school attachment, not living in a two-parent family, being of ‘other’ race/ethnicity and current use of both cigarettes and cigars. ‘Phillies’ was the most popular brand of cigar for making blunts, used by 59.$% of users. ‘Garcia y Vega’ (18.0%) was the second most popular. Twenty-eight per cent of blunt users had added drugs other than marijuana to blunts. The use of blunts as a drug delivery device is a serious problem. Efforts to address it will require the cooperation of the tobacco control and substance abuse prevention systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The post-9/11 United States abusive deten-tion and interrogation program brought atten-tion to the critical roles of health professionals generally and of psychologists more particu-larly in the modern administration of torture and other detainee abuse. Over a decade of controversy in the American Psychological Association (APA) and an independent in-vestigation finding APA collusion with the Bush administration's torture and coercive interrogation programs led to 2015 policies restricting the activities of psychologists in national security interrogations and illegal detention sites like Guantanamo. This con-troversy expanded to evaluation of a broader set of issues regarding the ethical roles of psy-chologists in furthering military and intelli-gence operations, or what has become known as Operational Psychology. Controversy over the extent to which Operational Psychology activities are consistent with psychological ethics has expanded since 2015 with critics calling for policies restraining Operational Psychologists from involvement in activities that cause greater than trivial unstipulated harm, lack informed consent, or are absent plausible independent ethical monitoring (due, for instance to security classification). Operational Psychologists have pushed back against any constraints on their actions other than US law and government regulations. This debate also raises a broader issue: are there limitations on the extent to which we, as members of democratic societies, can tolerate the use of psychological science and expertise to manipulate unwitting people?