American Psychological Association Gets Another Chance

On August 8, 2018, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) governing body, the Council of Representatives, solidly rejected a proposal to allow military psychologists to return to Guantanamo—a proposal that was, in a stunning disregard of international standards of human rights, supported by APA leadership, including the Board of Directors and the Committee on Legal Issues.

The proposal was advertised as an attempt to allow military psychologists to provide psychological treatment for the 40 remaining detainees, although that was clearly not to be the end of it, since the military psychology division’s newsletter publicly acknowledged its president’s desire to have military psychologists be unfettered in the ability to be present and/or support: “any national security or defense-related interrogation or detention operation” (via APA). Furthermore, APA’s Committee on Legal Affairs recommended that APA support military psychologists not only return to treating detainees, but to the practice of consulting in “humane” interrogations, without specifying what that means, and without acknowledging that, under the current administration, interrogations may well devolve into “waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse," The Guardian reported.

A few things are clear. 1) Some military psychologists want not only to return to Guantanamo, but to be unfettered in their practice—to remove all limitations imposed by their concerned colleagues in APA. 2) APA leadership either does not want to, or does not know how to, prevent that. 3) Some supporters of military psychologists are going to keep fighting for freedom from APA oversight, and to use a variety of means. (At this year's convention, a scientific meeting was disrupted with baseless allegations and threats.) 4) The issue is way more important to the world than either the advocates for returning military psychologists to Guantanamo or the leadership of APA admit, and possibly than either group understands. 5) Once they had an opportunity to consider the implications, Council members understood that whether or not military psychologists returned to Guantanamo was not a trivial matter, but one of international importance. They were then able to make an informed decision and to block the organization from giving tacit approval to the existence of indefensible settings. 6.) It will likely take a great deal of time and effort to continue to protect APA from itself, and this is time and effort that could otherwise be used in more proactive efforts towards peace and social justice.

Based on the actions and reactions of APA leadership and the military psychologists, I find myself worrying that this entire move to undo the 2015 policy, a policy that was the result of a landslide vote of Council, may perhaps be directed by some entity outside APA, with help from APA leadership and/or staff, and not simply by a few military psychologists. Furthermore, I worry that APA leadership may naively believe, or purposely pretend to believe, that this question of whether military psychologists actually return to Guantanamo is a minor matter—equivalent to sibling rivalry—where military psychologists are in a minor disagreement with their peers who are not in the military. If they indeed believe that, they will have quite a job resolving the cognitive dissonance that must arise from knowing that multiple international human rights organizations formally and publicly stated their objections to the proposed change in policy. Whether APA leadership does not understand—or pretends not to understand—the question of whether military psychologists will return to Guantanamo and treat tortured detainees is one with grave implications.

Behind the drama that unfolded during APA’s annual convention, loom a few major questions that will determine the future of APA and perhaps the future of psychology in the United States:

1. Can APA leadership stand up to the Department of Defense (DOD) or is it so dependent on either the department or some allied entity that it is unable to do so?
2. Does APA leadership understand the gravity of the impact of its actions?
3. Should psychologists who care about their profession continue to try to salvage APA, or do we need an entirely new organization of psychology, one that operates outside the influence of the U.S. Department of Defense and key intelligence agencies?