The Hoffman Report- Independent Investigation into APA collusion.pdf

This preview shows page 1 out of 566 pages.

Unformatted text preview: ================================================================== REPORT TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION INDEPENDENT REVIEW RELATING TO APA ETHICS GUIDELINES, NATIONAL SECURITY INTERROGATIONS, AND TORTURE ================================================================== David H. Hoffman, Esq. Danielle J. Carter, Esq. Cara R. Viglucci Lopez, Esq. Heather L. Benzmiller, Esq. Ava X. Guo, Esq. S. Yasir Latifi, Esq. Daniel C. Craig, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 July 2, 2015 INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 II. INVESTIGATION PROCESS AND LIMITATIONS............................................5 III. SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION’S CONCLUSIONS .............................9 A. Conclusions Regarding PENS Task Force and APA/Defense Department Collusion (2005 - 2008) .........................................................10 B. Conclusions Regarding Secret Joint Venture Between APA and DoD Officials In Years After PENS...................................................................36 C. Conclusions Regarding APA’s and Psychology’s Ties with the CIA, 2001 - 2004 ................................................................................................44 D. Conclusions Regarding Changes to Ethics Code Task Force in 2002, Including “Nuremberg Defense” ...............................................................55 E. Conclusions Regarding Improper Application of APA Ethics Disciplinary System to Protect CIA and DoD Psychologists ....................58 IV. ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE CHARGE........................64 V. CONCLUDING COMMENTS .............................................................................70 BACKGROUND ON PSYCHOLOGISTS AND NATIONAL SECURITY ......................................73 THE 2002 ETHICS CODE REVISION ..........................................................................................86 APA INTERACTIONS WITH CIA AND DoD: 2001—2004 ........................................................124 THE PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON ETHICS AND NATIONAL SECURITY (“PENS”) AND INITIAL AFTERMATH .........................................................................206 THE POST-PENS PERIOD – LATE 2005 TO EARLY 2009....................................................347 APA’S HANDLING OF DISCIPLINARY CASES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY PSYCHOLOGISTS...........................................................................................................464 FINANCIAL REVIEW..................................................................................................................523 GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................529 ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED) .......................................533 INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1 II. INVESTIGATION PROCESS AND LIMITATIONS...........................................5 III. SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION’S CONCLUSIONS.............................9 A. Conclusions Regarding PENS Task Force and APA/Defense Department Collusion (2005 - 2008) .........................................................10 1. Key players ....................................................................................12 2. Conflict of interest .........................................................................13 3. APA’s motive to please DoD.........................................................14 4. Other motivations...........................................................................15 5. Subordination of ethics analysis ....................................................15 6. The creation of the Task Force and selection of its members........16 7. Discussions before the meeting .....................................................18 8. Task Force meeting and report ......................................................20 9. a) Key DoD Task Force members..........................................20 b) Efforts by non-DoD Task Force members.........................21 c) Ultimate “approval” by non-DoD Task Force members ...25 d) “Safety Monitor” argument................................................26 Other issues in the Task Force report ............................................29 a) Application of Ethics Code................................................29 b) Ethical obligation to detainee.............................................29 c) Access/use of medical data ................................................30 d) Research.............................................................................31 INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA B. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS 10. “Emergency” action by the Board .................................................32 11. Quick transformation of PENS into strict human rights document through misleading public statements as PR strategy ...35 Conclusions Regarding Secret Joint Venture Between APA and DoD Officials In Years After PENS...................................................................36 1. APA/DoD close and secret collaboration on public statements and media strategy .......................................................36 2. Behnke as DoD contractor providing training as part of BSCT psychologist interrogation training program..................................37 3. Actual and attempted trips to Guantanamo....................................38 4. Policy victory.................................................................................39 5. Abandonment of PENS “casebook” plan ......................................40 6. Obstruction on amending Ethics Code Standard 1.02 ...................41 7. Behind-the-scenes attempts to manipulate Council of Representatives actions in collusion with, and to remain aligned with DoD........................................................................................42 Conclusions Regarding APA’s and Psychology’s Ties with the CIA, 2001 - 2004 ................................................................................................44 1. Overview........................................................................................44 2. Initial contacts and 2002 Conference.............................................48 3. Martin Seligman.............................................................................48 4. Joseph Matarazzo...........................................................................49 5. Melvin Gravitz and his opinion for James Mitchell on ethics and interrogations...........................................................................50 6. Philip Zimbardo .............................................................................52 7. Robert Sternberg ............................................................................53 8. 2003 and 2004 conferences............................................................53 9. Role of Susan Brandon ..................................................................54 ii INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA TABLE OF CONTENTS D. Conclusions Regarding Changes to Ethics Code Task Force in 2002, Including “Nuremberg Defense” ...............................................................55 E. Conclusions Regarding Improper Application of APA Ethics Disciplinary System to Protect CIA and DoD Psychologists.........................................58 IV. ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE CHARGE ......................64 V. CONCLUDING COMMENTS .............................................................................70 BACKGROUND ON PSYCHOLOGISTS AND NATIONAL SECURITY ..........................73 I. THE EARLY HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY .....................................................73 II. THE WORLD WARS............................................................................................73 III. IV. V. A. World War I ...............................................................................................73 B. World War II..............................................................................................74 PSYCHOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY DURING THE COLD WAR..76 A. The CIA .....................................................................................................76 B. The U.S. Military .......................................................................................79 PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MILITARY AFTER THE COLD WAR .................80 A. Ties Between Psychologists and the Military............................................80 B. APA’s 1991-2004 Ban on Military Advertising........................................82 PRESCRIPTIVE AUTHORITY...........................................................................83 THE 2002 ETHICS CODE REVISION.....................................................................................86 I. II. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................86 A. Participants and Process.............................................................................86 B. Meeting Discussions ..................................................................................89 ISSUES RAISED IN ECTF DISCUSSIONS ......................................................91 A. Nuremberg Defense ...................................................................................91 B. Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research ......................................94 iii INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA TABLE OF CONTENTS C. Creation of Police & Public Safety Psychology, Correctional Psychology, and Military Psychology Seat ....................................................................98 D. Conflict Between Ethics and Law – Standard 1.02 .................................102 1. Concerns from correctional and military psychologists ..............104 2. Concerns from private practitioners and forensic psychologists .110 3. Nuremberg not discussed.............................................................113 E. Human Rights Standards..........................................................................116 F. Seligman comment...................................................................................117 G. October 2001 meeting..............................................................................118 H. Nightingale concern .................................................................................118 I. Changes to Principles After September 11, 2001 ....................................120 J. Do No Harm.............................................................................................121 APA INTERACTIONS WITH CIA AND DoD: 2001—2004 ................................................124 I. BACKGROUND: GOVERNMENT POLICY AND PRACTICE......................124 A. Origins of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques .......................................125 B. The First Application of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.................127 C. Legal Guidance ........................................................................................129 D. Behavioral Science Consultation Teams .................................................130 E. Guantanamo Request for Authorization to Use SERE-Based Interrogation Techniques .........................................................................132 F. Enhanced Interrogations at Guantanamo .................................................135 G. Growing Opposition to the Enhanced Interrogation Program .................136 H. Continued Involvement of Mitchell and Jessen.......................................138 I. Evolution of the BSCT Role ....................................................................142 J. Department of Defense Research Policy .................................................144 K. Public Awareness of Abusive Interrogations...........................................149 iv INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA II. III. IV. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS APA’S INITIAL COUNTERTERRORISM RESPONSE: SEPTEMBER 2001– NOVEMBER 2001..............................................................................................153 A. The Board of Directors’ Response...........................................................153 B. Relationships with the Department of Defense .......................................154 C. Developing Contacts with the FBI...........................................................155 D. Broadening Relationships with the CIA ..................................................156 1. Professional Standards Advisory Committee ..............................156 2. Operational Assessment Division’s role in interrogations...........157 3. Advisory Committee members’ inquiries to APA members and staff........................................................................................159 GROWING RELATIONSHIPS WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES: DECEMBER 2001 – FEBRUARY 2002............................................................161 A. Continued Science Directorate Outreach.................................................161 B. Seligman Gathering .................................................................................162 C. Meeting of the CIA Advisory Committee ...............................................165 D. FBI Conference: “Countering Terrorism: Integration of Theory and Practice”...................................................................................................166 BROADENING AND STRENGTHENING CONNECTIONS: MARCH 2002 – MARCH 2004 ..........................................................................169 A. Congressional Outreach ...........................................................................169 B. Continued Interactions with Executive Agencies ....................................171 C. Meetings with APA Presidents at the CIA ..............................................172 D. CIA Conference: “The Science of Deception: Integration of Practice and Theory”................................................................................173 E. Continued Interactions with CIA Contractors .........................................180 F. Awareness of Abusive Interrogations......................................................182 ETHICAL RUMBLINGS: MARCH 2004 – JULY 2004 ..................................183 A. Ethical Inquiries from CIA ......................................................................183 v INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS B. FBI and NIJ Conference: “The Nature and Influence of Intuition in Law Enforcement: Integration of Theory and Practice”......................186 C. CIA Conference: “Interpersonal Deception: Integration of Theory and Practice” ............................................................................................188 D. The Task Force on the Psychological Effects of Efforts to Prevent Terrorism..................................................................................................189 E. Abu Ghraib Media and Internal Response...............................................191 F. The Legal Framework..............................................................................193 G. Requests for Ethical Guidance.................................................................194 H. Additional Interactions with Mitchell and Jessen....................................196 ETHICS AND NATIONAL SECURITY: JULY 2004 – NOVEMBER 2004...197 A. July 20, 2004 APA Ethics and National Security Forum ........................198 B. Follow Up to the National Security Forum..............................................203 THE PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON ETHICS AND NATIONAL SECURITY (“PENS”) AND INITIAL AFTERMATH ...................................................................206 I. CREATION OF PENS TASK FORCE AND SELECTION OF MEMBERS .206 A. B. November 29, 2004–January 4, 2005: Neil Lewis’s New York Times Article and Early Discussions of a Task Force.............................206 1. The November 30 article and resulting internal APA discussions and reaction...............................................................206 2. Follow up discussions, including of Newman/Dunivin conflict of interest ........................................................................211 3. Initial Board discussion of the Task Force ..................................213 Preliminary Suggestions for Task Force Members, and Russ Newman’s Involvement: January 4 – 18, 2005 .......................................215 1. Strategic discussions about lack of “evidence”; Mumford’s unsuccessful attempt to raise the Newman/Dunivin conflict of interest .....................................................................................215 2. Staff recommendations regarding task force nominees, and initial involvement of Morgan Banks ...................................219 vi INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA C. D. E. II. APA-Defense Department interactions, and Board Approval of Task Force: January 19 – February 17, 2005 ...................................................223 1. APA attempt to influence DoD policy, and link to task force member selection process ............................................................223 2. Involvement of Russ Newman and Morgan Banks .....................225 3. Board approval of task force........................................................230 February 17 - March 18, 2005: Influence of Debra Dunivin; task force finalized ..........................................................................................231 1. Some early communications about task force nominees .............231 2. Influence of Debra Dunivin .........................................................233 3. Final selection of task force members .........................................237 4. Overall observations ....................................................................242 Task force Members Announced and Concerns Arise: April 2005.........243 PENS LISTSERV AND RELATED DISCUSSIONS .......................................247 A. Listserv begins: Gelles’s Opening Thoughts, Behnke’s Handling of Moorehead-Slaughter, Tensions between Gelles and Shumate...............247 B. Banks and Others Weigh-In, Arrigo Raises Issues, Koocher-Arrigo Exchanges: May 2005..............................................................................249 C. Observers Considered, Newman’s Conflict of Interest, Choosing “Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective”: June 2005 ....................253 D. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Task force observers ...................................................................253 2. Newman’s conflict of interest......................................................256 3. Failed observers ...........................................................................258 4. Using “safe, legal, ethical, and effective”....................................260 5. Shumate’s and Mumford’s messages...........................................261 Overall Observations ...............................................................................262 PENS MEETINGS AND REPORT ...................................................................264 A. Overall Impressions of Task Force Members..........................................264 vii INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA B. C. IV. V. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DoD Task Forc...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture