Psychologists question torture policy

Beyond the differences of opinion surrounding a controversial anti-torture resolution passed by the American Psychological Association last summer, Friday’s meeting between Association President Sharon Brehm and concerned members of the University community demonstrated a disagreement about the “facts” on torture.\nAbout 30 students, faculty members and concerned Bloomington residents turned up to question Brehm on an anti-torture resolution her organization approved last summer. That resolution has been criticized by activists as not having done enough to end the suspected torturing of non-citizen prisoners.\nWhile the meeting’s discussion of the resolution was often heated, participants did not attack the IU psychology professor personally. Rather, many expressed a concern that a continued presence by psychologists at detention centers such as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba legitimizes questioned government operations there.\nPresident Bush points to the continued psychologists’ presence at prisons as providing guidance to the interrogations, said IU Law professor Dawn Johnsen during the meeting. \nStill, the actual role psychologists play in interrogations was debated itself. Brehm said psychologists only acted in an advisory role during questionings, working with interrogators to develop effective strategies that will elicit “accurate information.”\nThe controversy surrounding the Association’s resolution stems from a rejected moratorium of psychologists at interrogation sites. That amendment was turned down at the organization’s conference last August, but debate among some psychologists continues. Some former members of the Association have quit in protest, while hundreds of others are refusing to pay dues, according to an organization spokesman. \nSimilar professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association already passed resolutions similar to the psychologist’s rejected one. \nWhen questioned about these other policies, Brehm responded those resolutions largely proved less effective than the regulations set forth by the American Psychological Association’s. \n“All of our ethical policies are based on individual responsibility,” Brehm said. “If you violate the behaviors that are prescribed then, if it is a serious violation, we’ll kick you out of the association and you may not be able to make a living anymore. It is that basic.”\nBrehm acknowledged, however, that it’s often tough to prove a psychologist’s wrongdoing. \nDespite insistence by some attendees that psychologists played a more active role in conducting interrogations, Brehm said she thinks psychologists usually are not even present in interrogation cells. Instead, Brehm said she thinks psychologists observed interrogations from behind one-way mirrors. In that role, they can serve as government watchdogs, ensuring interrogators do not torture prisoners. \n“We have great confidence that at least most of our members are really good people and that they would not do bad things,” Brehm said, adding her belief that psychologists had the ability to be heroes in fighting against torture. \nThose expectations are exactly the problem, said New York University psychology professor Beth Shinn. The psychologist had been a member of the American Psychological Association since the 1980’s, but resigned following last August’s resolution. \nPsychologists are ordinary people who are affected by the situations in which they find themselves, Shinn said. It’s unrealistic to believe that psychologists will always act as superheroes standing up to the government in order to stop torture, she said. \nA student contingent, led mostly by the activist group Indiana Students Against War, along with faculty and community organizations, showed up to question the policy. \nParts of last summer’s resolution are too ambiguous, said graduate student Sandrine Catris. In addition, Brehm’s uncertainty on specifics regarding interrogation sites made it difficult for Catris to take a firm stance on the issue. \nThroughout the meeting, Brehm was uncertain on specifics regarding the controversial interrogation sites. She said she has never been to detention centers like Guantanamo Bay’s and as a result could not specifically discuss conditions there. \nRegardless, Brehm’s stance on the resolution was strong. It’s a resolution she believes proves effective in stopping torture. \n“To be a psychologist who treats people, it is a deeply engrained sense of ethics,” Brehm said. “So that’s the way we do business as an association.”