I consider the behavior of the APA to be so shameful, that I believe the association should disband. Perhaps then a body could be formed that would treat the profession in an ethical and responsible manner.

because they never would have gotten involved in the first place. I can only attribute the difference between the reaction of psychiatrists and psychologists in this matter to the Hippocratic Oath, i.e., first, do no harm.

I'm sure there is some way for these psychologists to rationalize their behavior or to overcome the considerable cognitive dissonance created by being torture enablers, likely the excuse the tortured detainees were not their clients, the CIA/Torture Guild WAS.

The problem with this series of articles is their lack of historical context.

The torture programs had their roots in the 1940s 'scientific warfare' programs - a theme that was largely initiated with nuclear weapons and electronic radar development, but which spawned many admirers. Biological and biochemical warfare programs were initiated in the U.S. in 1942-43 (this was in response to the large Japanese biowarfare program, by the way). Examinations into psychological and chemical interrogation and manipulation techniques followed soon after, including the famous LSD and electroshock experiments on unwitting medical patients and prison inmates, leading to the initiation of MK ULTRA programs in 1952-1953 under Helms, Dulles and Gottlieb, as well as CIA psychiatrist/biochemist Dr. Harold A. Abramson, a main academic player in the program.

Thus, from the very initiation, psychologists have been deeply involved in CIA interrogation and other CIA programs (i.e. propaganda, social manipulation, etc.). They also played a role in writing justifications for the program - "The Soviets are developing 'Manchurian candidates', and we must counter them."

There is a remarkable history here, in that biological warfare and psychological interrogation programs ran side-by-side, with the CIA 'dirty tricks' department, the Technical Services branch run by Sidney Gottlieb, serving as glue. This was the 1950s, remember, and CIA plots ranged from the bizarre (dosing Castro with LSD to make him seem crazy) to the savage (backing the sadistic Greek, Chilean, Argentinian and Guatemalan torture regimes by helping assassinate 'communist sympathizers'). For the whole history, see Ed Regis (The Biology of Doom) and Martin A. Lee (Acid Dreams, LSD and the CIA). See also the following website on Frank Olson, an Army biowarfare scientist who was probably murdered on orders from Abramson and Gottlieb:

http://www.frankolsonproject.org/

Those experiments showed that sensory deprivation and random abuse were effective means of 'breaking down' prisoners. Once the subject had been 'broken down', the theory goes, they will become like putty and do exactly as they are told, etc.

Efforts by the corporate press to portray this as a recent phenomenon carried out by rogue soldiers or rogue psychologists are just efforts to distract attention away from those who ordered that those techniques be taken off the shelf and used in Guantanamo, CIA black sites, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. That would be Cheney and Rumsfeld, right?

The coverage has also neglected the fact that the two initial reasons for initiating the torture program in 2002 were to discover any additional plots against the U.S., and create a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam as a pretext for invading Iraq. The former method doesn't work (says the ex-director of the DIA), and

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html

Report: Abusive tactics used to seek Iraq-al Qaida link, Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

If you put that next to the bogus claims on Iraqi nuclear and biological weapons programs, it looks a lot like the Bush Administration was bent on invading Iraq well before 9/11, and rather than go after the Taliban in earnest, they decided to use 9/11 as a pretext for seizing Iraqi oil - and torture was part of their deliberately deceptive effort.

Whitewash it all you like, but it won't cover up the blood and shit stains, will it?

http://www.georgevreilly.com/blog/content/binary/iraq-torture-dogs-thumb-tm.jpg

I agree with you completely that Bush, Cheney, et al. are the true criminals in all of this. I guess for me the difference is that I wasn't surprised by their behavior. They behaved like the ethically challenged buffoons I thought them to be. From my personal experience with some very moral ethical members of the Psychology profession, I had higher expectations of the APA.

Looking at the historical context you provided makes so depressed, that I'd like to visit a psychologist, if I could ever trust them again.

I suggest we hunt down and execute these guys and gals too. After all it's the logical conclusion of what you yourselves have been saying.

No we shouldn't hunt them down and kill them, but maybe they should stand trial in the Hague like ohter war criminals.

I have been a psychologist member of the APA for almost 20 years and I can tell you that I am ashamed of these revelations. I find it hard to believe that our organization, whose founding principle is to "do no harm" would find itself in anyway involved in interrogations of any kind!

It pains me to believe that the cardinal professional organization of psychologists would be co-opted by a corrupt Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld regime into thinking we could "provide humane service" to the captives.

The APA has significantly damaged the profession of psychology and must make amends: Nothing less than total truth and transparency about its policy complicity with government directives (remember Nazi Germany and the Nuremberg trials?). Amends would include a "truth & reconcilliation" process of the leadership with apologies to the profession, to the captives and to the American people.

Psychologists do not torture. Nor do they look the other way in silence when psychologists enable torture to occur.

I'm increasingly dismayed by the apparent "community values" that find torture to be just fine "as long as it works."

Today there are two letters to the editor to that effect in my local community newspaper.

Major media outlets, including the so called "liberal" NY Times, PBS & NPR continue to avoid the use of the word "torture" in favor of "enhanced interrogation," as if the use of a waterboard improves the whole interrogation experience.

Our President and Attorney General seem unwilling to prosecute anyone for sanctioning torture, let alone committing torture...and it seems likely that current prohibitions on torture are safe only until the next election.

Depending on which poll you read, more than half of my countrymen believe that torture is justified, Peggy Noonan thinks that if you see someone being tortured, you need to just keep on walking, and I don't even know what to think about Nancy Pelosi.

I'm dismayed, I wasn't raised this way, and I don't really understand when Americans became so fearful and timid...but given the context, you've almost got to give the APA a pass on this one. Clearly they are behaving right in line with "community values."

Or at least half of our community.

Sad.