REPORT TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (2015)

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

x Standard 5.01(a)²³⁰⁶ in that he failed to discuss with the complainant the

limitations of confidentiality, that the session with him was not covered by the

rules of confidentiality, or that there was a possibility that he would be called

upon to testify against the complainant;

x Standard 5.01(c)²³⁰⁷ in that he conducted his session with complainant while it

was videotaped without the complainant’s knowledge or permission

x Standard 1.07(a)²³⁰⁸ and 1.07(b)²³⁰⁹ in that Gelles evaluated the complainant and

failed to provide to him beforehand the true nature of the services that he was

offering and failed to inform complainant that he was precluded from doing so by

virtue of his employment.

Pursuant to the standard practice of the Ethics Office, the case was assigned to two

readers, Lisa Callahan and Elizabeth Swenson.²³¹⁰ The case was also assigned to a monitor,

Peter Mayfield, under Part V, Subsection 7. Gelles responded to the charge letter on May 14,

2002, and submitted his own transcript of the videotaped session that had been transcribed and

notarized by a third party.

On August 2, 2002, Childress-Beatty emailed a memo analyzing the charges against

Gelles.²³¹¹

In her email, Childress-Beatty explained that some of the charges were not legally

²³⁰⁶ Standard 5.01(a) (“Psychologists discuss with persons and organizations with whom they establish a

scientific or professional relationship (including, to the extent feasible, minors and their legal

representatives) (1) the relevant limitations on confidentiality, including limitations where applicable in

group, marital, and family therapy or in organizational consulting, and (2) the foreseeable uses of the

information generated through their services.”)

²³⁰⁷ Standard 5.01(c) (“Permission for electronic recording of interviews is secured from clients and

patients.”)

²³⁰⁸ Standard 1.07(a) (“When psychologists provide assessment, evaluation, treatment, counseling,

supervision, teaching, consultation, research, or other psychological services to an individual, a group, or

an organization, they provide, using language that is reasonably understandable to the recipient of those

services, appropriate information beforehand about the nature of such services and appropriate

information later about results and conclusions.”)

²³⁰⁹ Standard 1.07(b) (“If psychologists will be precluded by law or by organizational roles from

providing such information to particular individuals or groups, they so inform those individuals or groups

at the outset of the service.”)

²³¹⁰ According to Ethics Office staff members, including Childress-Beatty and Dixon, cases that are put

before the Ethics Committee are assigned two readers - a primary reader and a secondary reader - who

analyze the cases and prepare summaries for the entire Ethics Committee to review during the meetings.

We heard conflicting accounts about whether these readers are assigned a particular position. Linda

Forrest, a former Ethics Committee Chair, stated that one reader is the “pro” reader and the other is the

“con” reader, and both were to present their arguments for or against sanctions to the Committee during

meetings. Former investigator Deborah Carliner told Sidley that the readers were not assigned particular

positions.

²³¹¹ Carliner said it was common practice to have the General Counsel’s office review all cases that were

going to be presented to the Ethics Committee. Carliner interview (June 15, 2015).

480

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

supportable, others were relatively weak, and that whether to proceed with the charges was a

policy question for the Ethics Office.²³¹²

On August 5, 2002, Behnke, Childress-Beatty, and Jones, in his role as a consultant,

discussed the Gelles case by email.²³¹³ Behnke repeatedly expressed reluctance to bringing the

case to the full Ethics Committee and actively looked for ways to avoid bringing the case to the

Committee. At 1:20 p.m., Behnke wrote:

I am very mixed on this case. On the one hand, it raises an interesting and

provocative issue, about the role of psychologists in investigations. On the other,

I am not at all sure that the Ethics Committee is the proper venue for this issue to

be addressed.²³¹⁴

Behnke then suggested that he could “exercise [his] authority as Director, and say the

case cannot go forward,” insist that certain charges be dropped, and send the remaining charges

to the Ethics Committee,²³¹⁵ or have the Monitor read Childress-Beatty’s memo and make a

recommendation regarding whether the case should be closed.²³¹⁶ Later, at 2:25 p.m., Behnke

wrote:

One unprecedented but technically okay method: replace the investigator and

monitor with the Director and Chair (they are the designees for such) and then

make the review to close. If the chair is not persuaded, so be it. Or replace only

the investigator.²³¹⁷

Noting that this method would be the “equivalent of a nuclear bomb,” Behnke asked

Jones if he thought the case was appropriate for Ethics Committee review, which meant that “a

reasonable committee could find violations by a preponderance of the evidence.”²³¹⁸ In his

response, Jones asked if any of the charges could be proven because he had not reviewed

²³¹² APA_0595034.

²³¹³ According to Behnke and Childress-Beatty, Jones was frequently brought in to consult on

adjudications matters.

²³¹⁴ APA_0595034.

²³¹⁵ When asked about Behnke’s authority to say a case cannot go forward, Childress-Beatty said that the

Director does not have the power to unilaterally close a case without the agreement of the Monitor

assigned to the case. In support of this, Childress-Beatty cited an Ethics Committee policy statement,

which states, in part, that: “a monitor may recommend that a case be dismissed at any point during the

investigation if the monitor believes that the Committee cannot reasonably find a violation. If the

investigator agrees, the matter will be closed . . . If the investigator does not agree to close the case, the

case will continue and be resolved by the Committee.” HC00022821. Childress-Beatty said that because

the investigators act as designees of the Director, the Director could make such a decision with the

Monitor. Rules and Procedures, Parts III - V.

²³¹⁶ APA_0595034.

²³¹⁷ Id.

²³¹⁸ Id.

481

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Childress-Beatty’s memo or the file. Behnke responded that, in his opinion, there was no charge

that could be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.²³¹⁹

That same day, August 5, 2002, Carliner began a leave of absence due to budget cuts. In

Carliner’s absence, Behnke made himself the investigator on the Gelles complaint. On August 6,

2002, Behnke sent an email to Carliner in which he stated that Childress-Beatty’s memo had

made clear that certain charges were legally unsupportable and that none of the remaining

charges “appear to have the required preponderance of evidence in its favor.”²³²⁰ Behnke also

stated that he was the “acting investigator” in Carliner’s absence and that he would ask the

monitor, Mayfield, to review Childress-Beatty’s memo and determine “whether he believes the

committee can reasonably find a violation.”²³²¹

On August 8, 2002 Behnke spoke with Carliner to inform her of the status of the case.

That same day, Carliner spoke to Mayfield and expressed her view as to why certain charges

should not be dropped.²³²²

During this time period, Behnke again showed resistance to proceeding with the charges

against Gelles and asked investigator Martha Mihaly to draft a memo to the Ethics Committee

under his name to inform them that the Deputy General Counsel had found that certain “in

that’s” and charges were not legally supportable, and that they should, therefore, not be

considered for violations as the Ethics Committee reviewed the case materials. Mihaly sent a

draft of the memo,²³²³ dated August 9, 2002, to Behnke.²³²⁴

On August 9, 2002, Behnke emailed Carliner, upset that she had contacted Mayfield. He

wrote:

I find that you would contact the Monitor to discuss the handling of a case,

without informing me, when I explicitly told you that I was acting investigator on

the case, that I was contact with the Monitor, and that I was actively in the process

of making a determination about how the case should be handled, very

troubling.²³²⁵

²³¹⁹ Id.

²³²⁰ APA_0594978.

²³²¹ Id.

²³²² APA_0594918.

²³²³ This memo was not in the Gelles adjudication file that Sidley reviewed (it was in Behnke’s custodial

data), and it is unclear whether this memo was sent to the Ethics Committee. What is clear from the

readers’ summaries is that all of the standards Gelles was charged with were ultimately reviewed by the

full Ethics Committee.

²³²⁴ APA_0674056; APA_0674057.

²³²⁵ APA_0594918.

482

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

That same day, Carliner emailed Behnke to say, “I feel that my absence is being taken

advantage of both in how the Gelles case is being handled and in your rush to judgment.”²³²⁶

Behnke forwarded Carliner’s email to Deputy CEO Mike Honaker.²³²⁷

Nearly one week later, on August 15, 2002, Behnke emailed Carliner again regarding the

Gelles matter and stated that her behavior was “unacceptable” and that the only decision that had

been made in the case was that it would go forward to the full Committee as planned.²³²⁸ He

also expressed “concern” about her “ability to handle this case in an objective manner.”²³²⁹

Carliner returned to the Ethics Office on September 10, 2002, and on September 12,

2002, she suggested to Behnke that they meet with Nathalie Gilfoyle to discuss the Gelles

complaint.²³³⁰

By September 15, 2002, Gilfoyle had viewed the videotape of the Gelles-King

session.²³³¹

On September 16, 2002, Behnke told Carliner that he would ask Gilfoyle if she had

any questions about the case.²³³² That same day, Behnke emailed Gilfoyle and asked if she had

any questions about any of the ethics cases going before the Ethics Committee that upcoming

weekend. Behnke did not mention Carliner’s request to review the Gelles case specifically. On

September 17, 2002, Carliner sent a separate email to Gilfoyle, and stated that she would like to

get Gilfoyle’s thoughts on the case now that she had seen the tape.²³³³ Sidley found no other

correspondence between Behnke, Carliner, or Gilfoyle before the Gelles case was put forth

before the full Ethics Committee.

Despite Behnke’s desire to limit the charges that the Ethics Committee would consider,

the Committee considered all of the charges against Gelles. In advance of the meeting, the

readers, Callahan and Swenson, prepared summaries for the Committee’s review. Both

recommended against finding violations of any of the Ethics Code standards.

In her summary, Callahan wrote that there was “a lot of ‘posturing’ and hyperbole from

[King’s] attorney,” and that after reading the entire case file, she concluded that the most helpful

documents were the transcript submitted by Gelles, the videotape, King’s declaration, and

Gelles’s responses.²³³⁴

Callahan also noted that she chose to rely on the transcript submitted by

Gelles because it was transcribed by an “outside concern as opposed to the complainant[].”²³³⁵

With respect to standards 1.15 and 1.16(a), Callahan stated that it was “clear from the transcript

and videotape that [King] knows why [Gelles] is present and what the purpose of his interview is

- he came with a list of questions,” and that King “misrepresented the facts as shown on the

²³²⁶ APA_0594914.

²³²⁷ Id.

²³²⁸ APA_0594830.

²³²⁹ Id.

²³³⁰ APA_0594718.

²³³¹ APA_0674851.

²³³² APA_0594454.

²³³³ APA_0674821.

²³³⁴ HC00022258 at 1-8.

²³³⁵ Id.

483

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

videotape and on the transcription.”²³³⁶ On standard 1.21(a), Callahan wrote that Gelles was

very clear about why he was interviewing King and that “[t]here [was] no evidence in the written

record nor in the videotape that suggests that [Gelles] had a ‘hidden agenda,’” and that “[t]here

was no implication of therapeutic ‘help’ being sought or offered.”²³³⁷ On standard 5.01(c),

Callahan concluded that there was “nothing in the written record or on the videotape that

supports the claim that [King] did not know the limits on confidentiality” because the two agents

were in the room throughout the interview.²³³⁸ On standard 5.01(c), Callahan concluded that

NCIS regulations required that the interview be covertly taped and Gelles was required by his

superiors to follow the order for a secret taping.²³³⁹

Callahan pointed out that because Gelles

was not charged under 8.03, which addresses the conflict between ethics and organizational

demands, there was no violation.²³⁴⁰ Finally, with respect to standards 1.07(a) and (b), Callahan

concluded that the charge was “contingent upon being convinced that [Gelles] had a hidden

agenda, which [wasn’t] documented,” and that her viewing of the tape did not agree with King’s

claims. Thus, Callahan recommended “[n]o violation on all standards.”²³⁴¹

While Swenson also concluded that there were no violations of any Ethics Code

standards, her reader summary reflected a deep concern regarding Gelles’s actions. For instance,

with respect to standard 1.15 and 1.16(a), Swenson noted that by telling King that the agents did

not pass judgment on him, Gelles was “not only misleading in his comments about the agents but

omitted information that could have really helped [King] about how false memories can be

established and solidified by interrogation.”²³⁴²

Similarly, on standard 1.21(a), Swenson

concluded that even though there was “technically no violation, [Gelles] could have done much

more to explain his role, which would be in the spirit of Standard 1.21(a).”²³⁴³ Ultimately,

Swenson concluded that Gelles made the “most minimal disclosures necessary to comply with

the ethics standards,” and that his behavior was “ethically very marginal.”²³⁴⁴ Swenson also

suggested that there might be a possible recharge under Standard 8.03, but we found no records

in the adjudication file to indicate that this was ever pursued. Swenson told Sidley that during

Ethics Committee meetings, the Ethics Office staff members were present mostly to answer

questions from Committee members and that they participated “only if they were asked to.”²³⁴⁵

²³³⁶ Id.

²³³⁷ Id.

²³³⁸ Id.

²³³⁹ Id.

²³⁴⁰ Id.

²³⁴¹ Id.

²³⁴² Id.

²³⁴³ Id.

²³⁴⁴ Id.

²³⁴⁵ Swenson interview (May 4, 2015).

484

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Swenson said that she did not feel any pressure to close the Gelles case or to not find a

violation.²³⁴⁶

The Ethics Committee considered the Gelles case during their September 20-22, 2002

meeting and voted unanimously to dismiss all of the charges.²³⁴⁷ The entire adjudication process

for the complaint lasted 17 months.

The evidence shows that Behnke was reluctant to proceed with charges against Gelles

and that he actively looked for ways to avoid sending the case to the full Ethics Committee. It is

unclear what motivated Behnke, but the evidence suggests that he may have been influenced by a

prominent APA member. During 2002, when the Gelles case was pending, Mel Gravitz

approached Behnke at an APA meeting and said that he wanted to talk about Gelles’s

disciplinary case. Initially, Behnke told Sidley that he could not recall the date or exact

substance of the conversation, but later said that he believed the meeting occurred in February

2002 when Gravitz was on Council.²³⁴⁸ Behnke said that Gravitz expressed a concern that if

Gelles were found in violation of the Ethics Code, it would hinder the work of psychologists

working on national security matters. Behnke did not recall how he responded to Gravitz, but

thought that he would have told Gravitz that he could not discuss the matter. An email from

former CIFA employee, Scott Shumate, to APA employee, Heather Kelly, suggests the opposite.

In the email, Shumate alleged that Gravitz sent a message to “APA legal” that pursuing the

Gelles case would make it look like APA was taking a stand against the government while

“colors ran so high” after 9/11 and that Gravitz’s message “ended the case.”²³⁴⁹ Behnke told

Sidley that it was possible that something he said caused Gravitz to conclude that he was

agreeing with, or at least acknowledging, his point. But, Behnke said that this conversation did

not affect his actions or decisions, or those of the Ethics Committee, because he thought the

allegations against Gelles were weak on the merits.²³⁵⁰

Behnke told Sidley that while he did not fully understand or agree with the charges, the

case went forward because the investigator felt strongly about sending the case to the full Ethics

Committee. Despite Behnke’s August 2002 emails, which show him actively looking for ways

to avoid moving forward with the Gelles case, Behnke denied there were any attempts to

influence either Carliner’s decision to bring the case to the full Committee or the decision of the

Ethics Committee members. Carliner did not think that any of the Committee members were

²³⁴⁶ Id.

²³⁴⁷ HC00011428.

²³⁴⁸ Behnke email to Sidley (June 9, 2015).

²³⁴⁹ APA_0129871.

²³⁵⁰ The Ethics Office was not insulated from outside influence and the nature of the process allowed for

manipulation at times. Koocher told Sidley that Raymond Fowler manipulated the adjudication process

when there was a complaint filed against Elizabeth Loftus, a high-profile psychologist who did work on

false memories. When Fowler found out there was an ethics complaint pending against Loftus, he reached

out to her and told her she should resign her membership before a case could be formally opened against

her. He later denied that he had done so and appointed one of his deputies to “investigate” how Loftus had

found out about the complaint.

485

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

improperly influenced by either Behnke or Gravitz, and she did not recall Behnke speaking up or

giving comments during the Ethics Committee meeting discussion of the Gelles matter.²³⁵¹

Carliner told Sidley that she did not recall the specifics of the Gelles case. She did recall

that she was “appalled” by Gelles’s behavior during his interactions with King and believed very

strongly that the case should be heard before the full Ethics Committee.²³⁵² She also recalled

that Behnke did not want to bring the case against Gelles. Her sense was that Behnke did not

want APA involved in going against government psychologists who were “doing bad things.”²³⁵³

Sidley asked if Carliner if there were other incidents that would have given her this impression of

Behnke. Carliner recalled a conversation with Behnke after the torture and prisoner abuse at

Abu Ghraib became public. Carliner said that during this discussion, she compared the behavior

of psychologists at Abu Ghraib with that of psychologists at Guantanamo, and Behnke gave her

the “impression” that he “did not oppose psychologists doing bad things.”²³⁵⁴

James Mitchell

As early as 2004, newspaper articles about the involvement of psychologists in

potentially abusive interrogations began to surface. On November 30, 2004, the New York Times

published Neil Lewis’s article “Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo.”²³⁵⁵ Then, on

January 6, 2005, the New England Journal of Medicine published “When Doctors Go to War,”

an article by Gregg Bloche and Jonathan Marks, which reported that psychologists were part of

the BSCT teams at both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.²³⁵⁶ Over the course of next several

months, articles detailing psychologists’ involvement in interrogations continued to emerge.

Sharon Gadberry saw some of these articles, and on June 6, 2005, emailed then-APA

President Ron Levant. Gadberry wrote that after seeing some of the “techniques” used in

Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, she wondered if there were any psychologists involved, and if so,

whether APA should consider an investigation “at the very least of ethics violations.”²³⁵⁷ Later

that same day, Gadberry’s email was sent to Behnke.

One month later, on July 6, 2005, Gadberry sent another email to Levant in which she

said that she was ashamed that psychologists were participating in interrogations that were both

illegal and unethical. Gadberry stated that the APA “need[ed] to conduct immediate

²³⁵¹ Id.

²³⁵² Carliner interview (May 29, 2015).

²³⁵³ Id.

²³⁵⁴ Id.

²³⁵⁵ Neil Lewis, Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo, New York Times (Nov. 30, 2004),

available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/30gitmo.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

²³⁵⁶Gregg Bloche & Jonathan Marks, When Doctors Go to War, New England Journal of Medicine (Jan.

6, 2005), available at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048346.

²³⁵⁷ APA_0038701.

486

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

investigations of the psychologists involved in Guantanamo and in other interrogations around

the world.” Again, the email was forwarded to Behnke later that day.²³⁵⁸

The next day, on July 7, 2005, another Bloche and Marks article, “Doctors and

Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay,” appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. Bloche

and Marks reported that “mounting evidence” suggested that military interrogators at

Guantanamo had been using “aggressive counter-resistance measures in systematic fashion to

pressure detainees to cooperate,” including “sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, painful body

positions, feigned suffocation, and beatings.”²³⁵⁹

Specifically with respect to psychologists, the

article stated that “since late 2002, psychiatrists and psychologists have been part of a strategy

that employs extreme stress, combined with behavior-shaping rewards, to extract actionable

intelligence from resistant captives.”²³⁶⁰

Four days later, on July 11, 2005, Jane Mayer’s article “The Experiment” was published

in the New Yorker. The article discussed harsh interrogation techniques that were being used at

Guantanamo and reported that a psychologist, James Mitchell, had suggested the use of such

techniques during the interrogation of a high value Al Qaeda suspect.²³⁶¹ Mitchell, Mayer

reported, had “announced that the suspect needed to be subjected to rougher methods” and

should “be treated like the dogs in a classic behavioral-psychology experiment” referring to

studies performed by Martin Seligman and other graduate students at the University of

Pennsylvania in the 1960s.²³⁶² During these experiments, the dogs were placed in harnesses and

given unavoidable electric shocks, after which they were released into pens and shocked again

but given a chance to escape punishment. Mayer reported that Mitchell’s position was opposed

by a counter-terrorism expert, who had not spent time at a SERE school and who reminded

Mitchell that he was “dealing with human beings, not dogs.”²³⁶³ According to this expert,

Mitchell replied that the experiments were “good science.”²³⁶⁴ When Mayer asked Mitchell

about the incident, Mitchell “confirmed that he admired Seligman’s research,” but declined to

comment on any interrogations that he might have participated in.²³⁶⁵

The next month, on August 18, 2005, Gadberry emailed Levant again and stated that she

had been trying “since early June to file an ethical complaint against psychologist[s] who [were]

involved with US torture in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Pakistan.” Gadberry said that Behnke had

called her once, and that she returned his call, but had not heard back from him. She also said

²³⁵⁸ APA_0040325.

²³⁵⁹ Gregg Bloche & Johnathan Marks, Doctors and Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, New England

Journal of Medicine (July 7, 2005), available at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058145.

²³⁶⁰ Id.

²³⁶¹ Jane Mayer, The Experiment, The New Yorker (Jul. 11, 2005), available at

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/07/11/the-experiment-3.

²³⁶² Id.

²³⁶³ Id.

²³⁶⁴ Id.

²³⁶⁵ Id.

487

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

that she sent a written request to file a complaint “[t]wo weeks ago” and had not heard back from

the Ethics Office. Lastly, she said that as an individual, she could not find out the names of

individual psychologists who were involved in torture and believed that “it [was] the

responsibility of the APA t[o] request this secret information from the government.” This email

was forwarded to Behnke the next day.²³⁶⁶ Behnke responded and told Gadberry that she would

be hearing from the Ethics Office. Gadberry wrote back to Behnke and told him that the

“representative” from the Ethics Office had agreed to send her the form for filing an ethics

complaint.²³⁶⁷

Gadberry ultimately received a complaint form, and on September 27, 2005, the Ethics

Office received her complaint against James Mitchell, Martin Seligman, Morgan Banks, and

“others,” who had “assisted in stressful military interrogation procedures in Guantanamo, Iraq,

and Afghanistan.”²³⁶⁸ Gadberry referenced the New England Journal of Medicine article

“Doctors and Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay” and the Physicians for Human Rights report

“Break Them Down: The Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces”.²³⁶⁹

That same day, an administrative assistant in the Ethics Office conducted a membership

records search to determine whether any of the named respondents were APA members, and

thus, whether APA had jurisdiction over the complaint under Part II, Subsection 5 of the Rules.

She found that Morgan Banks was not a member.²³⁷⁰ The membership records database showed

that Seligman was an APA member and that there were three individuals named “James

Mitchell,” including one “James E. Mitchell.”²³⁷¹ Sidley found no evidence of any further steps

taken to identify whether any of the three members named James Mitchell was the James

Mitchell referenced in Mayer’s article. When asked about this, Behnke could recall no such

steps being taken.²³⁷²

If the Ethics Office had taken any additional steps, it would have

determined that James E. Mitchell was the James Mitchell referenced in Mayer’s article.

Gadberry told Sidley that when she initially contacted the Ethics Office to file the

complaint, she spoke with a woman on the phone who said that she “worked for Steve Behnke”

and discouraged Gadberry from filing the complaint. Gadberry recalled that the woman told her

²³⁶⁶ APA_0042511.

²³⁶⁷ APA_0042506.

²³⁶⁸ HC00017446.

²³⁶⁹ Even though Gadberry’s complaint was against Seligman, Mitchell, and Banks, the Ethics Office filed

her complaint under Seligman’s name alone. There are officially no complaints against James Mitchell in

the Ethics Office’s records. Sidley was able to obtain the Gadberry complaint because Childress-Beatty

recalled Gadberry’s name associated with a complaint against psychologists involved in interrogations.

²³⁷⁰ APA Membership Inquiry for James Mitchell.

²³⁷¹ Id.

²³⁷² Behnke stated during his interview that he would have worked on this complaint with Patricia Dixon.

Behnke interview (May 21, 2015); When Sidley spoke to Dixon, she stated that she did not recall

anything about the complaint, and she did not know whether Mitchell was an APA member at the time

the complaint was filed. Dixon interview (May 19, 2015).

488

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

that she “had to prove that who [she] was complaining about was a member of the APA [. . .]

before [she] could file a complaint.”²³⁷³ When she inquired about how she should do that, the

woman hung up on her. Gadberry did not recall the name of the woman. After several

additional phone calls to the Ethics Office that went unanswered, Gadberry began writing to

Levant, first to inquire whether APA should investigate psychologists who might be involved in

abusive interrogations, and then to complain that she was being stonewalled in her attempts to

file an ethics complaint.²³⁷⁴

Behnke’s response to Gadberry is consistent with an unwillingness to pursue her

complaint. On October 25, 2005, Behnke wrote to Gadberry, acknowledged that he had read her

complaint and the articles she referenced, and asked her to provide additional information to the

Ethics Office. He wrote:

It would be very helpful to our process if you could provide to the Ethics Office

the passages in the articles (or any other materials you are aware of) that make

specific allegations, and ideally provide evidence to support those allegations,

against the psychologists whom you name in your complaint. Thus far—and

despite a direct request to one of the authors of the New England Journal of

Medicine—I have been provided no evidence to support a specific allegation that

any psychologist member of APA has engaged, supported, facilitated, supervised,

or in any other manner participated in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or

degrading treatment. I have also reviewed four government investigations into

detainee abuse.²³⁷⁵

Behnke’s response demonstrates his reluctance, and arguably active resistance, to

proceed with Gadberry’s complaint. Although he read the articles that Gadberry had submitted

with her complaint, Behnke wanted Gadberry to take the additional step of citing passages in the

articles that “make specific allegations” and “provide evidence to support those allegations”—

passages that would have been clear to him from reading the articles.²³⁷⁶ While his suggestion

that he had no evidence to support “a specific allegation” that an APA member had in any

manner participated in “torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” may have been

factually accurate with regard to the articles,²³⁷⁷ it was disingenuous when considered against the

full context of information he had reviewed by this point in time. The Mayer article, on its face,

was, at the very least, specific in its allegations against James Mitchell—that Mitchell suggested

that a suspect be subject to “rougher methods” and treated like a “dog[].” Nothing in the Rules

would have prevented the Ethics Office from proceeding with Gadberry’s complaint against

Mitchell and opening a preliminary investigation, or formal case, to gather additional

²³⁷³ Gadberry interview (June 5, 2015).

²³⁷⁴ Id.

²³⁷⁵ HC00017445.

²³⁷⁶ Id.

²³⁷⁷ Behnke told Sidley that he must have reached out to Bloche after receiving Gadberry’s complaint, but

did not recall what “four government investigations” he would have reviewed.

489

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

evidence.²³⁷⁸

Yet Behnke’s letter suggested the opposite—that it would be “difficult” to proceed

without specific evidence. In the same letter, Behnke also wrote:

I appreciate your concern regarding this matter of such great import to our

profession and to society. The Ethics Office will process your complaint,

although it will be difficult to move forward without evidence linking a specific

psychologist member to unethical or illegal behavior. I can assure you that the

Ethics Office would move forward were it to receive such evidence, and that we

are carefully monitoring what appears in the media to that end.²³⁷⁹

Gadberry recalled that she spoke to Behnke on the phone at least once and that his tone

was “scornful.”²³⁸⁰ She stated that Behnke told her that she did not have enough evidence and

that he would not process the complaint unless she “detailed the allegations against each person

and proved it.”²³⁸¹ Gadberry responded that she thought it was APA’s job to investigate the

complaint and that there was “enough evidence that they could at least look into it.” Gadberry

recalled that Behnke’s response was “no, absolutely not,” and that they “would not take any

investigate steps.” ²³⁸²

When asked about discussions with Gadberry, Behnke told Sidley that he

did not recall any specific conversations with Gadberry, but that he believed he did, in fact,

speak with her at some point.²³⁸³

Nine months after the Ethics Office received Gadberry’s complaint, on June 28, 2006,

APA received James Mitchell’s letter of resignation. Mitchell’s letter of resignation came while

the complaint against him was still pending, but the Ethics Office had not yet formally

corresponded with him regarding the complaint. And Sidley found no evidence that the Ethics

Office ever did. Mitchell’s resignation letter was not contained in the adjudication file; Sidley

obtained it from APA membership records. Mitchell’s letter indicated that he had paid his dues

through 2007, but “no longer wish[ed] to be a member of this voluntary organization.”²³⁸⁴

Mitchell’s letter did not state his reasons for resigning.

Although the timing of Mitchell’s resignation could suggest that someone at APA made

him aware of the pending complaint, Sidley did not find any evidence to support this suggestion.

Behnke, Childress-Beatty, and Dixon, told Sidley that they did not contact Mitchell.²³⁸⁵ Mitchell

²³⁷⁸ There were no specific allegations against Seligman or Banks in the information submitted by

Gadberry.

²³⁷⁹ HC00017445.

²³⁸⁰ Gadberry interview (June 5, 2015).

²³⁸¹ Id.

²³⁸² Gadberry interview (June 5, 2015).

²³⁸³ Behnke interview (June 8, 2015).

²³⁸⁴ J. Mitchell Resignation Letter to APA (on file with Sidley).

²³⁸⁵ Dixon did not recall anything about the Mitchell complaint. Dixon interview (May 19, 2015);

Childress-Beatty stated that she did not become involved in the Mitchell complaint until Behnke asked

her to draft a letter to Gadberry in 2008. Childress-Beatty interview (May 19, 2015); Behnke stated that

490

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

told Sidley that he did not recall the reasons behind his decision to resign from APA beyond the

fact that APA had become “more and more politicized,” and that it had taken stances that were

not consistent with his beliefs.²³⁸⁶

When asked if an ethics complaint had prompted his decision

to resign, Mitchell said that he was not aware of an ethics complaint being filed against him.

Behnke told Sidley that he interpreted Mitchell’s resignation letter to suggest that

Mitchell thought he was likely to be sanctioned if he remained an APA member. When Sidley

asked Behnke why Mitchell would have thought this, Behnke responded that Mitchell was likely

looking at APA and its stance in the PENS Report, and thinking that APA was not a “friendly

organization.” Behnke noted that Mitchell’s resignation letter signaled the fact this was not a

“happy relationship” and that if the APA was truly protecting Mitchell, “the least [he] could do

was stay [a] member.”²³⁸⁷

Nearly two months after Mitchell terminated his APA membership, on August 10, 2006,

Gadberry emailed Behnke, said that she would like to officially re-file her ethics complaint, and

attached a new complaint letter. In her letter, Gadberry described her interactions with the Ethics

Office:

From the very beginning, your office tried to discourage me. At first, my e-mails

and phone calls were not answered. When I persisted, I was told that it was

necessary to fill out a form to file an ethics charge, and that I would need to

provide your office with specific names of people, whom I knew to be members

of the APA, for you to even send me the form.

…

You did send me the form, five months after my original request. After I filled

out the form, and filed a five-page detailed summary of charges, you answered me

with a letter denying my request to file ethical charges. In your letter, you said

that you had not been able to find any information that [p]sychologists were

involved in torture. I was surprised by this, because in my summary I had

referred you to articles in the media that named at least three Psychologists as

having participated in the BSCT program in Guantanamo

…Is it your consistent practice to demand that anyone filing an ethical complaint,

actually prove the complaint before it can even be filed? This seems to be

backward. Are you holding this particular complaint to a different standard?

he did not contact Mitchell, and that he was not aware of anyone in the Ethics Office who would have

contacted Mitchell. Behnke interview (May 21, 2015).

²³⁸⁶ Mitchell interview (May 15, 2015).

²³⁸⁷ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015).

491

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

I am renewing my request for an investigation and would hope that this can get

underway as soon as possible.²³⁸⁸

Gadberry’s letter was never put into the adjudication file. Instead, Sidley found this letter

in its review of Behnke’s emails.²³⁸⁹ When Sidley asked Behnke about why this letter was never

added to the file, he responded that he did not know, and guessed that he would have looked at

the letter, determined that Mitchell was no longer a member, and “thought there was nothing

here to adjudicate.”²³⁹⁰

On March 24, 2008, Gadberry emailed Behnke and reminded him that she had

“attempted to file ethics charges” against psychologists identified in news accounts and that he

had told her that charges “could not be filed because there was not enough information

provided.”²³⁹¹

In her email, Gadberry said that she had learned that other charges had been filed

against individuals indentified in media reports and that those charges would be proceeding.

Gadberry asked several questions about the charges that had been filed, the individuals being

charged, and the adjudications process, including whether the Ethics Office used subpoenas to

obtain additional information. On the same date, Behnke emailed Dixon and Childress-Beatty to

discuss Gadberry’s email, but none recalled what they discussed or whether the conversation

even happened.²³⁹²

On April 15, 2008, Behnke emailed Gadberry and informed her that she would be

receiving a response in hardcopy as the Ethics Office did not discuss case-related matters over

email.²³⁹³

Almost three months later, the Ethics Office sent Gadberry on July 1, 2008, signed by

Childress-Beatty.²³⁹⁴

In the letter, Childress-Beatty stated that Gadberry had not responded to

Behnke’s letter from October 2005 and that “no complaint can proceed without a respondent

who is both specifically identified and a member of APA.”²³⁹⁵ Childress-Beatty did not

acknowledge the letter from Gadberry dated August 9, 2006, and did not inform Gadberry that

even though one of the respondents, James Mitchell, was an APA member when she filed her

complaint, he was no longer an APA member as of June 2008.²³⁹⁶ Instead, Childress-Beatty’s

²³⁸⁸ APA_0087322; APA_0087323.

²³⁸⁹ Indeed, Childress-Beatty, who became familiar with the file when she joined the Ethics Office in

2007, said that she had not seen this letter prior to our showing it to her during the course of our

investigation. She explained that the letter did not look like it would have been received by the Ethics

Office because it lacked the typical “confidential” and “date received” stamps that they would have

appended to every document they received from a complainant.

²³⁹⁰ Behnke interview (June 8, 2015).

²³⁹¹ HC00017443.

²³⁹² Id.

²³⁹³ HC00017441.

²³⁹⁴ HC00017440.

²³⁹⁵ Id.

²³⁹⁶ As noted earlier, Childress-Beatty had been unaware of Gadberry’s letter dated August 9, 2006 until

Sidley showed it to her during her interview.

492

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

letter suggested that none of the psychologists against whom Gadberry filed her complaint were

APA members—a suggestion that was patently false as both Seligman and Mitchell were

members at the time Gadberry filed her complaint. While Childress-Beatty explained that APA

did not have any subpoena power to compel testimony or documentary evidence, and could have

taken the opportunity to inform Gadberry of the limitations of the adjudications process (or

correct Gadberry’s impressions about the process), she did not. Childress-Beatty did not inform

Gadberry that the process was limited to a review of documents submitted by complainants and

respondents, that the Ethics Office did not contact any witnesses or conduct any interviews, or

that the Ethics Office did not proactively seek out additional evidence. Childress-Beatty said

during her interview that in the letter, she sought to communicate that Mitchell was not a

member of the APA and so the APA had no jurisdiction over her complaint. Childress-Beatty

also told Sidley that she was unaware that Mitchell had been an APA member prior to APA’s

public statement on the matter in November 2014.²³⁹⁷

The Ethics Office took no steps to investigate the allegations against Mitchell prior to his

resignation. Nor did the Ethics Office take any steps to investigate the allegations against

Seligman even though he was, and remained, an APA member throughout the time the complaint

was pending. The complaint was ultimately recorded as “complaint process incomplete” in the

Ethics Office’s internal tracking system.²³⁹⁸

The way in which Gadberry’s complaint was handled by the Ethics Office shows the lack

of transparency in the type of “investigations” that the Ethics Office conducts and Behnke’s

unwillingness to take any affirmative investigative steps on the matters. Gadberry’s

communications with the Ethics Office clearly indicated that she expected the Ethics Office to

conduct an investigation—that is, to actually take some affirmative investigative steps. Even if

the Ethics Office had opened a preliminary investigation or a formal case to gather additional

information related to Gadberry’s complaint, and followed its general practice, the Ethics Office

still would not have conducted an investigation in the sense that Gadberry understood the term.

But none of the communications to Gadberry made this clear. Instead, the communications to

Gadberry avoided the issue and suggested that the case could proceed if they were provided with

evidence.

When Sidley asked Behnke why the Mitchell complaint was not pursued in light of the

publicly available information about Mitchell at that point, specifically with the Mayer article in

the New Yorker, Behnke provided several explanations, none of which Sidley found credible.

First, Behnke said that in 2005, no one in the Ethics Office had an appreciation for the types of

activities that Mitchell was involved in.²³⁹⁹

But, Mayer’s article provided concrete examples of

the types of activities in which Mitchell was involved. More importantly, Behnke was fully

aware of Mitchell’s activities by September 2005 as a result of his involvement with the PENS

²³⁹⁷ Childress-Beatty interview (May 19, 2015).

²³⁹⁸ Seligman, et. al. Investigation Tracking System print-out.

²³⁹⁹ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015).

493

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Task Force several months earlier. In fact, in Behnke’s handwritten notes from the PENS Task

Force meeting, he specifically wrote the words “New Yorker,” “Jim Mitchell,” and “SERE.”²⁴⁰⁰

Second, Behnke said that even if an investigation had been opened, the Ethics Office

“would’ve written to Mitchell [and] he would’ve said he can’t talk about it,” and “at that point in

time, we would’ve said we can’t get to this information and it would’ve been closed

anyway.”²⁴⁰¹ This was pure conjecture as the Ethics Office made no attempts to get any

information from Mitchell. When Sidley pointed this out to Behnke, his response was “fair

enough.”²⁴⁰²

Third, Behnke claimed that this complaint was procedurally problematic because it was

filed against multiple people, and that the Ethics Office typically did not accept complaints

against “groups of individuals.”²⁴⁰³

But, Behnke did not have an explanation for why the

complaint form as it existed in 2005 explicitly allowed for filing against multiple “member(s).”

Behnke also stated during his interview that the Ethics Office would have written back to

Gadberry, asking her to re-file. When Sidley pointed out that no one did that in 2005 when she

initially filed her complaint, Behnke had no explanation.²⁴⁰⁴

In summary, when Gadberry filed the complaint, the Ethics Office could have pursued

her complaint against Mitchell, but it did not. The evidence shows that instead of taking any

affirmative steps to investigate the complaint, Behnke and Ethics Office staff took steps to

discourage Gadberry from filing her complaint, and when that failed, Behnke simply chose to not

act on it at all.

John Leso

There were a total of three Ethics matters related to John Leso (“Leso”): (1) the August

2006 sua sponte matter; (2) the complaint filed by Alice Shaw (received in October 2007); and

(3) the complaint filed by Trudy Bond (received in February 2008). The initial sua sponte

complaint was closed in August 2007 and the two complaints were reviewed together. Despite

receiving the initial complaint against Leso in October 2007, the Ethics Office’s investigation

lingered until December 2013, when the matter was officially closed without elevating it to the

full Ethics Committee. The Leso matter was one of the longest adjudications in the Ethics

Office’s history.

²⁴⁰⁰ HC00010682.

²⁴⁰¹ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015).

²⁴⁰² Id.

²⁴⁰³ Id.; Childress-Beatty also stated during her interview that the Ethics Office did not accept complaints

against multiple individuals, referring to such complaints as “kitchen sink” complaints. Childress-Beatty

stated that because the complaint “threw everyone in one pot,” she would have returned the complaint and

asked the complainant to file separate ones for each member.

²⁴⁰⁴ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015).

494

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Sua sponte matter

In June 2005, Behnke received an early copy of the New England Journal of Medicine

article “Doctors and Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.” The article alleged that the “principal

BSCT function was to engineer the camp experiences of ‘priority’ detainees to make

interrogation more productive”²⁴⁰⁵ and identified Major John Leso as a BSCT psychologist. On

June 26, 2005, Levant emailed Behnke and asked if Leso’s involvement in BSCT interrogations

as alleged in the article was something that the Ethics Committee should act on. Behnke

responded that many on the PENS Task Force “voiced the opinion that there are significant

distortions in the article,” and more importantly, told Levant that Leso was “not an APA

member, so our Ethics Committee has no jurisdiction.”²⁴⁰⁶ The evidence shows that Leso has

been an APA member since 1996, and that he was indeed a member at the time of Levant’s

inquiry.²⁴⁰⁷

When asked about this, Behnke responded that he just “had it in [his] mind that Leso

was not an APA member” and that he did not know “what happened there.” Behnke recalled

that Koocher “upbraid[ed]” him about this statement in person at a later point in time.²⁴⁰⁸

On August 1, 2006, Behnke forwarded Mark Benjamin’s Salon.com article

“Psychological Warfare” to Jones and asked him to review what was said about Leso. Behnke

wondered if it was sufficient to open a sua sponte case.²⁴⁰⁹ Jones responded that he did not think

that there was sufficient information in the article to open a sua sponte case because there was

“really very little here to show what Leso personally did,” and questioned whether there would

be any value in a sua sponte preliminary investigation.²⁴¹⁰ A little over an hour later, Jones

wrote back again and included several articles dating back to 2005 in his email. Jones stated that

“APA likely had all the relevant information on Leso over one year ago; i.e. a sua sponte process

may be time barred,” and that “information by June 2005 suggests his identify was known.”

Jones concluded that this “tilts the process to a complainant brought action, and cautions any

discussion of sua sponte as a necessarily available option.”²⁴¹¹

On August 2, 2006, Dixon recommended to then-Ethics Committee Vice Chair, Robin

Deutsch, that the Ethics Office open a sua sponte preliminary investigation into the actions of

Leso. Dixon’s recommendation was based on the allegations in Oath Betrayed, a book by

Steven Miles, which alleged that as a member of the BSCT team, Leso monitored the

interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani, who was subjected to a number of enhanced

interrogation techniques (“EITs”). On August 8, 2006, Deutsch agreed to open a preliminary

investigation²⁴¹² and by August 25, 2006, Dixon had drafted a letter to Leso, informing him that

²⁴⁰⁵ Id.

²⁴⁰⁶ APA_0844344.

²⁴⁰⁷ APA Membership Inquiry for John Leso (on file with Sidley).

²⁴⁰⁸ Behnke interview (June 8, 2015).

²⁴⁰⁹ APA_0087614.

²⁴¹⁰ Id.

²⁴¹¹ APA_0087612.

²⁴¹² HC00007396.

495

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

the Ethics Office had decided to open a preliminary investigation based on the allegations in

Miles’s book.

The letter was never sent to Leso. A handwritten notation on a draft of the letter

indicated that it was “not sent per Steve” and contained the date “8-25-06” along with Dixon’s

initials, “PSD.”²⁴¹³

Dixon confirmed that she had received an instruction from Behnke to not

send the letter to Leso. Both Dixon and Behnke explained that the letter was not sent because

the Ethics Office decided to pursue the complainant matters against Leso instead.²⁴¹⁴ But, it was

not until September 5, 2006, more than ten days after Behnke’s instruction, that the Ethics Office

received the first written inquiry from a complainant (Alice Shaw) regarding filing a complaint

against Leso.²⁴¹⁵

Neither Dixon nor Behnke could account for why Behnke instructed Dixon not

to send the August 25, 2006 letter, ten days before any written inquiry regarding Leso was

received by the office.²⁴¹⁶

Behnke told Sidley that he might have decided not to send the letter

because he had heard from various individuals before September 5, 2006 that they were planning

to file complaints against Leso. Behnke did not recall the names of these individuals. Given the

close proximity of the sua sponte matter and the date the Ethics Office received the first inquiry

regarding Leso, Behnke’s explanation—that he had heard that complaints against Leso would be

forthcoming—seems plausible, but Sidley found no documents to support this claim.

The sua sponte matter was officially closed on August 2, 2007.²⁴¹⁷ There was nothing in

the adjudication file that suggests any additional work was done on this matter between August

26, 2006 and August 2, 2007.

Complaints from Alice Shaw and Trudy Bond

(i)

The Shaw complaint

Alice Shaw submitted the first complaint against Leso. The Ethics Office received

Shaw’s inquiry letter on September 5, 2006, and on September 13, 2006, sent her a complaint

packet that included a complaint form, the Rules, the Ethics Code, and additional information for

individuals filing APA ethics complaints.²⁴¹⁸ The Ethics Office received Shaw’s completed

complaint form on October 26, 2006. In her complaint, Shaw stated that she reviewed “several

reports” suggesting that Leso had established procedures for interrogating detainees and presided

at interrogation sessions in which abusive techniques were used. In particular, Shaw pointed to

the “Army Regulation 15-6: Final Report Investigation into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse

at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” (the “Schmidt-Furlow report”) as one of her sources, and cited

standards 1.09 (respecting others), 1.14 (avoiding harm), and 1.02 (relationship of ethics and

law) from the 1992 Ethics Code. Shaw did not attach any documents to her complaint form. On

²⁴¹³ HC00007395.

²⁴¹⁴ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015); Dixon interview (May 19, 2015).

²⁴¹⁵ APA_0299793.

²⁴¹⁶ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015); Dixon interview (May 19, 2015).

²⁴¹⁷ HC00007390.

²⁴¹⁸ APA_0299793.

496

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

November 27, 2006, Dixon wrote a letter to Shaw and requested any additional information she

might have had regarding Leso’s involvement at Guantanamo.²⁴¹⁹ Shaw responded on

December 12, 2006, restated her allegations, cited specific excerpts from the documents she

referenced in her original complaint, and attached a copy of the Schmidt-Furlow report.²⁴²⁰

Between December 2006 and March 2007, the decision was made within the Ethics

Office to ask Jones to act as the investigator on the Shaw complaint. The complaint materials

were sent to Jones on March 1, 2007,²⁴²¹ and Jones provided his completed analysis to the Ethics

Office on March 19, 2007.²⁴²² In addition to reviewing the Schmidt-Furlow report, Jones also

reviewed the Interrogation Log of Detainee 063 (“interrogation log”), which he found on the

Time Magazine website. Jones concluded that many of the allegations were speculative and that

there were substantial issues as to the respondent’s ability to provide any additional information

about Leso’s actions. Jones did not recommend any particular action, but set forth three options:

(1) close the complaint; (2) open a preliminary investigation to solicit more information from the

respondent; or (3) conduct further investigation to determine whether there is any additional

direct information about Leso’s behaviors.²⁴²³

Despite having received Jones’s summary on March 19, 2007, there was no indication

that the Ethics Office took any further actions on the Shaw complaint until October 2007. On

October 11, 2007, Dixon wrote a decision memo to then-Ethics Committee Chair Deutsch, and

recommended that a preliminary investigation be opened against Leso.²⁴²⁴ On October 14, 2007,

Deutsch agreed that an investigation should be opened and noted that the allegations were

“extremely concerning.”²⁴²⁵ It was not until November 16, 2007 that the Ethics Office wrote to

Leso to notify him that a preliminary investigation had been opened against him.²⁴²⁶ None of the

individuals Sidley interviewed could explain why the preliminary investigation was not opened

until October 2007 when the analysis by Jones was completed in March, or why it took a full

month to notify Leso of the decision to open a preliminary investigation against him.²⁴²⁷

(ii)

The Bond complaint

While the Ethics Office was working on the Shaw complaint, Trudy Bond, a member of

the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology and Psychologists for Social Responsibility, also lodged

²⁴¹⁹ HC00007661.

²⁴²⁰ APA_0300176.

²⁴²¹ HC00007385.

²⁴²² APA_0091075.

²⁴²³ Id.

²⁴²⁴ APA_0300176.

²⁴²⁵ APA_0281323.

²⁴²⁶ HC00007531.

²⁴²⁷ In particular, Dixon stated that such a long time lapse has happened in other cases so it was not

unusual, but she did not recall why it took so long to notify Leso in this particular case. Dixon interview

(May 19, 2015).

497

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

a complaint against Leso. The Ethics Office stamped her complaint as received on February 15,

2008 even though the letter itself was dated September 4, 2007.²⁴²⁸

Bond told Sidley that she sent the Ethics Office a complaint prior to that date. According

to Bond, her initial complaint against Leso was sent to the Ethics Office on April 15, 2007, but it

was never acknowledged.²⁴²⁹ On September 4, 2007, she wrote to the Ethics Office, noted that

her previous complaint had not been acknowledged, and re-submitted her complaint—the same

letter that was not stamped as received by the Ethics Office until February 15, 2008. When she

still did not receive an acknowledgement by January 22, 2008, Bond wrote again to the Ethics

Office and inquired about her complaint.²⁴³⁰ She received a response from Behnke on February

6, 2008, indicating that the Ethics Office had never received her complaint against Leso

following her inquiry to file a complaint on April 11, 2007, and that as a result, the matter was

closed on October 11, 2007.²⁴³¹

Bond provided Sidley with a copy of the complaint she allegedly sent to the Ethics Office

on April 15, 2007, but Sidley did not find this complaint in the Ethics Office’s adjudication files.

None of the individuals within the Ethics Office recalled what happened to the April 15, 2007

complaint—some believed that it was never received while others believed that it could have

simply been lost.²⁴³² Nor could anyone explain why the letter from Bond dated September 4,

2007 was not marked as received until February 15, 2008. According to Childress-Beatty, once

the complaint was actually received in February, the Ethics Office reviewed both the Shaw and

Bond complaints together and examined all of the evidence submitted by both individuals.²⁴³³

On February 11, 2008, the Ethics Office received a response letter from Leso in relation

to the complaint filed by Shaw. In the letter, Leso stated that the allegations were based on

unsubstantiated sources and that he: (1) was never the chairman of the BSCT team; (2) never

helped establish procedures for interrogating detainees; and (3) never presided at interrogation

sessions or supervised such sessions.²⁴³⁴ Specifically, Leso cited to a June 2006 DoD policy that

permitted behavioral science consultants “to support lawful intelligence program activities

relating to detainees in the Global War on Terror”:

BSCs are authorized to make psychological assessments of the character,

personality, social interactions, and other behavioral characteristics of detainees,

including interrogation subjects, and, based on such assessments, advise

authorized personnel performing lawful interrogations and other lawful detainee

²⁴²⁸ HC00018636.

²⁴²⁹ Bond interview (Feb. 19, 2015).

²⁴³⁰ HC00017459 at 5-6.

²⁴³¹ Id. at 4.

²⁴³² Childress-Beatty stated that they did not believe that Bond actually sent in a complaint in April 2007.

Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015); Dixon stated that they looked for Bond’s April 2007

complaint and could not find it. Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁴³³ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁴³⁴ APA_0100676.

498

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

operations, including intelligence activities and law enforcement. They employ

their professional training not in a provider-patient relationship, but in relation to

a person who is the subject of a lawful governmental inquiry, assessment,

investigation, interrogation, adjudication, or other proper action.²⁴³⁵

Even though this policy was put in place after Leso had already left Guantanamo, he

stated in his letter that it was “generally consistent with practices and procedures in effect during

the period in question.”²⁴³⁶

Leso also cited to the PENS Task Force report and argued that there

was “no conflict between the APA Ethics Code and DoD policy on the use of behavioral science

consultants.”²⁴³⁷

Leso addressed both Standards 1.09 and 1.14:

[P]sychologists do not have a duty under Standard 1.09 to recognize in any

individual a ‘right’ to act upon their ‘values, attitudes, and opinions’ that embrace

terrorism or illegality.

…

Similarly, psychologists do not have a duty under Standard 1.14 to protect

terrorists or persons who commit heinous crimes from the ‘harm’ of treatment or

punishment in accordance with law […] In the context of international conflict

and the Global War on Terror, the standards of law applicable to the treatment of

enemy combatants are based on international law of armed conflict. I this regard,

the Department of Defense and Department of the Army have mechanisms and

procedures in place to investigate substantial allegations of improper conduct by

military officers and other DoD personnel in the treatment of detainees to take

appropriate disciplinary or administrative action when improper conduct has

occurred.²⁴³⁸

With respect to Shaw’s specific allegations, Leso stated that he was “not present during

significant portions of the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani” and that he “did not have

access to information regarding significant aspects of the investigation.” Leso further stated:

The only specific allegation of any action attributable to me is one contained in a

Time magazine article that: ‘Control puts detainee in swivel chair at Maj. L’s

suggestion to keep him awake and stop him from fixing his eyes on one spot in

booth.’ Even assuming the truth of that notation that I suggested putting the

detainee in a swivel chair to keep him awake and stop him from fixing his eyes on

one spot in the booth, this suggestion cannot be seen as disrespecting any right of

the detainee to humane treatment or treatment in accordance with law, or for that

matter as disrespecting whatever ‘right’ he may have had ‘to hold values,

attitudes, and opinions’ that he held. Nor can this suggestion be seen as harming

²⁴³⁵ Id.

²⁴³⁶ Id.

²⁴³⁷ Id.

²⁴³⁸ Id.

499

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

the detainee unless it was knowingly inhuman or not in accordance with law,

concerning which there is no evidence whatsoever submitted by Dr. Shaw.²⁴³⁹

Finally, Leso noted that he was limited in what he could respond to with respect to the

interrogation of al-Qahtani as “[i]nformation concerning interrogations of enemy combatants is

classified.”²⁴⁴⁰

Those who reviewed the complaint stated that they gave Leso’s letter the same weight as

the allegations in the complaint.²⁴⁴¹

According to Dixon, she had no reason to believe that Leso

was being dishonest in his responses and accorded the letter the same weight as she did the

complaint. Dixon recalled that her initial reaction to the response letter was that Leso was not a

“major player” in the interrogation of al-Qahtani and that any actions that could be directly

attributed to him based on the other documents in the record were not violations of the Ethics

Code.²⁴⁴² Similarly, Bow stated that he found the letter to be credible and did not believe that

there was any evidence to the contrary in the record.²⁴⁴³ Both individuals noted that it would

have been unusual to have a psychologist be placed above a psychiatrist in the hierarchy of a

medical team. All reviewers stated that while this letter did not sway their decisions heavily in

one way or another, they thought it was problematic that Leso was unable to discuss his actions

related to the interrogation of detainees and believed that they may never be able to obtain such

information from Leso.

On April 1, 2008, the Ethics Office received a letter from Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker from

the Surgeon General’s office on behalf of Leso. In the letter, Schoomaker stated that a “review

of the available records indicates that Dr. Leso did not do anything wrong and does not deserve

sanction for his performance of his official military duties.”²⁴⁴⁴

Schoomaker noted that two

senior army psychologists reviewed the records of interrogation in which Leso was involved and

found no evidence of “that he behaved in an unethical manner or harmed anyone in any way.”²⁴⁴⁵

Schoomaker also cited to the 2005 Martinez-Lopez report that concluded “[t]here is no

indication that BSCT personnel participated in abusive interrogation methods.”²⁴⁴⁶ At the end of

his letter, Schoomaker noted that if the APA had any questions or needed any additional

information, they could contact Colonel Kevin Luster, his Staff Judge Advocate.

Dixon told Sidley that she found this letter to be credible, but did not take into account

the fact that Leso was allegedly acting within the scope of his military duties. According to

²⁴³⁹ Id.

²⁴⁴⁰ Id.

²⁴⁴¹ There is nothing in the Rules that offers any guidance about how to weigh evidence from different

sources.

²⁴⁴² Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁴⁴³ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁴⁴⁴ HC00007451.

²⁴⁴⁵ Id.

²⁴⁴⁶ Id.

500

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Dixon, if there was a direct link between Leso and any behavior that would be a violation of the

Ethics Code, it would not have mattered that Leso was acting in his official military duties. Bow

stated that he recognized that the military tends to try to “protect its own,” but did not want to

discount this as evidence since it was one of the few accounts from someone with firsthand

knowledge of Leso’s behavior.

Despite the fact that Schoomaker included contact information for his Staff Judge

Advocate at the end of his letter, no one from the Ethics Office ever reached out to him or

Schoomaker. All of the reviewers stated that this was because the Ethics Office simply did not

contact potential witnesses as a part of its adjudications process.

On July 31, 2008, the APA sent another letter to Leso, requesting additional information.

Leso responded in a letter dated December 2, 2008, but mistakenly stamped by the Ethics Office

as received on January 2, 2008.²⁴⁴⁷ Leso stated that as a result of his position within the military,

he was precluded by law from commenting on “any matters relating to the interrogation of

detainees” and from providing any additional information from the June 2008 U.S. Senate

Armed Services Committee hearing. Leso also noted that within the documents furnished by the

Ethics Office, there was only one comment that was attributed to him, which was a statement

that indicated he spoke out against the use of “[h]arsh techniques.”²⁴⁴⁸

Leso referenced the letter

sent by Schoomaker, in which Schoomaker stated that Leso’s records were reviewed by two

senior Army psychologists who both found no evidence of unethical behavior, as further support

for his actions.

On February 22, 2010, Bond wrote to the Ethics Office and requested an update on the

status of her complaint against Leso.²⁴⁴⁹ On March 17, 2010, Behnke wrote back and informed

Bond that the Leso complaint remained under review. In the letter, Behnke explained that

“[t]here are times when the resolution of an ethics complaint entails careful consideration of

what information is available, or is likely to become available that may be relevant to the matter.

In such instances, the final resolution may require additional time, as opposed to ethics matters in

which all relevant information is immediately available in the public domain.”²⁴⁵⁰ He provided

no additional details about the status of the complaint.

On August 26, 2010, Kathy Roberts from the Center for Justice and Accountability wrote

a letter to the Ethics Office regarding Bond’s Leso complaint.²⁴⁵¹ In the letter, Roberts explained

that CJA represented Steven Reisner in his complaint against Leso before the New York State

Office of Professions. Roberts stated that “a great deal of information has become publicly

available since Dr. Bond originally filed her complaint,” referencing the 2008 SASC report and

²⁴⁴⁷ APA_0308212.

²⁴⁴⁸ This was likely a reference to the Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting Minutes, in which Leso was

quoted as saying “[f]orce is risky, and may be ineffective due to the detainees’ frame of reference. They

are used to seeing much more barbaric treatment.”

²⁴⁴⁹ HC00007233 at 16.

²⁴⁵⁰ Id. at 15.

²⁴⁵¹ Id. at 12-14.

501

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

attaching the complaint filed by Reisner against Leso in New York. On September 29, 2010,

Behnke responded to Roberts’s letter and informed her that if CJA wanted to submit documents

on behalf of Bond, then the Ethics Office would need a letter from Bond indicating her

knowledge of the CJA’s role. Behnke further noted that the Ethics Office “[did] not correspond

with third parties regarding the existence or status of a complaint.”²⁴⁵² As a result, on December

2, 2010, Bond, having been informed by Roberts of Behnke’s September letter, sent the Ethics

Office another copy of the CJA’s letter and attachment.²⁴⁵³

The initial decision to stay the Leso matter was made in December 2010 due to the filing

of Reisner’s complaint against Leso in New York. Pursuant to Rule Part II, subsections 5.5 and

5.6, if the Ethics Office discovers concurrent litigation or a complaint before a state licensing

against the same respondent, it may stay its own investigation until the licensing board makes a

decision. According to Ethics Office staff members, there are several reasons for this. First, the

respondents would not have to respond to two different venues simultaneously.²⁴⁵⁴ Second, the

Ethics Office prefers to defer to the licensing boards because they typically have more resources

and authority to investigate, and can therefore generate more information. This information is

then shared with the APA Ethics Office once the licensing board concludes its investigation.²⁴⁵⁵

Third, waiting and deferring to the licensing boards relieves the APA of the liability of being the

first adjudicatory body.²⁴⁵⁶

On December 16, 2010, Childress-Beatty drafted a memo to then-Ethics Committee

Chair, Linda Forrest, alerting her to the fact that Reisner had filed a complaint against Leso in

New York and that the Ethics Office would be staying the pending ethics complaints. On

December 22, 2010, Forrest responded and agreed to stay both complaints.²⁴⁵⁷ The Ethics Office

notified Bond of its decision to stay the complaints on December 30, 2010.²⁴⁵⁸

On January 5, 2011, the Ethics Office wrote a letter to Leso to notify him of the

complaint filed against him by Bond.²⁴⁵⁹ The letter noted that this was the “second complaint

received by the Ethics Office related to the same issue” and that the Ethics Office was aware of

the complaint against him in New York filed by the CJA. Accordingly, the Ethics Office was

staying the complaint from Bond and that it was not asking Leso to respond to the merits of the

complaint at this time. Leso acknowledged the receipt of the letter on April 21, 2011.²⁴⁶⁰

²⁴⁵² Id.at 11.

²⁴⁵³ Id.at 1-7.

²⁴⁵⁴ Dixon interview (Mar. 3, 2015).

²⁴⁵⁵ Id.

²⁴⁵⁶ Childress-Beatty interview (Jan. 16, 2015).

²⁴⁵⁷ HC00007317 at 35-36.

²⁴⁵⁸ Id. at 34.

²⁴⁵⁹ Id. at 32-33.

²⁴⁶⁰ Id. at 30.

502

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

On August 11, 2011, the Ethics Office learned that the New York Supreme Court had

dismissed the case brought by the CJA to force an investigation of Leso by the licensing

board.²⁴⁶¹

On November 9, 2011, the Ethics Office sent letters to Leso and Bond, asking them if

they were aware of any further appeals in the matter against Leso in New York.²⁴⁶² Bond

responded on November 18, 2011 and stated that she had “no knowledge of any information

beyond what the public docket indicates.”²⁴⁶³ While the Ethics Office acknowledged her letter

on December 2, 2011, it did not provide any substantive responses about the status of her

complaint, other than the fact that she will be contacted when the review is complete.²⁴⁶⁴

On September 18, 2012, Bond and Reisner sent an open letter addressed to then-APA

President Suzanne Bennett Johnson, expressing their concerns about the Gelles, Leso, and James

(discussed below) complaints.²⁴⁶⁵ With respect to each of the complaints, Bond and Reisner

noted the following:

The Ethics Committee apparently found that Dr. Gelles’ behavior did not violate

APA ethics; in fact, subsequent to this case, Dr. Gelles was chosen by the

Director of the Ethics Office to sit on the PENS Task Force and help develop

ethical guidelines for national security interrogations.

…

The ethics complaint against Col. James was dismissed by the APA Ethics Office

without investigation.

…

Now, more than five years after filing, the ethics complaint against Dr. Leso still

remains unadjudicated by the APA Ethics Office (apparently the longest

unadjudicated case in APA history).²⁴⁶⁶

Bond and Reisner also requested that Johnson: “(1) [o]pen a full review of the practices

of the APA Ethics Office with regard to the investigation and adjudication of cases alleging

torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in general, and the cases of Drs.

Leso, James, and Gelles in particular; (2) [e]nsure that the case against Leso receives a ‘prompt

adjudication,’ five years after it was filed; and (3) [m]ove to rescind the current statute of

limitations on cases of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so that there can be

accountability for psychologists who participate in classified abuses whenever the evidence of

²⁴⁶¹ Id. at 29.

²⁴⁶² Id. at 21-22.

²⁴⁶³ Id. at 19-20.

²⁴⁶⁴ Id. at 18.

²⁴⁶⁵ HC00019801 at 79-82.

²⁴⁶⁶ Id.

503

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

such abuses becomes available.”²⁴⁶⁷ On September 28, 2012, Behnke and Childress-Beatty met

with Johnson to discuss the open letter. According to an email summary from Behnke, Johnson

asked for an understanding about what happened in the three cases. Behnke stated that Johnson

“seemed very comfortable with the discussion,” “repeatedly emphasized that she was not

concerned with Trudy Bond,” and wanted “a statement that could be distributed to members who

have read the ‘open letter’ and then gotten in touch with her” with questions about what

happened.²⁴⁶⁸

When Bond and Reisner did not receive a letter from Johnson by October 23, 2012, they

sent an email to the APA’s Executive Office email address and requested an update.²⁴⁶⁹ During

this time, several APA members worked on the response letter, including Behnke, Childress-

Beatty, Farberman, Honaker, Gilfoyle, Garrison, and Anderson.²⁴⁷⁰ The response to Bond’s

open letter from Johnson came over a month later on October 31, 2012. Notably, her response

included the statement that the Ethics committee “focuses on primary (such as findings from a

legal proceeding) rather than secondary sources (such as media reports).”²⁴⁷¹

On November 28, 2012, Bond and Reisner responded to Johnson’s letter and stated that it

was the first time they have heard of the Ethics Committee making a distinction between

“primary” versus “secondary sources.” The two questioned whether this was an Ethics

Committee policy and requested its documentation.²⁴⁷² Neither the Ethics Office nor Bennett

Johnson responded to this letter. The Ethics Office staff and Committee members who reviewed

the Leso matter confirmed that they focused on primary sources (i.e. various government reports,

letters from Leso, and the letter from the Army’s Surgeon General’s office) rather than

secondary sources (i.e. media reports) in their evaluation of the complaints. According to

Childress-Beatty, the reliance on primary versus secondary sources was not part of the Rules and

Procedures, or any policy document. Instead, it was simply one of the “long-standing” practices

of the Ethics Office since almost all complaints received and investigated by the office were

based on firsthand accounts—Childress-Beatty referred to this distinction as “common

sense.”²⁴⁷³

Separate from the open letter, on September 19, 2012, Bond sent another letter to the

Ethics Office, requesting an update on her complaint and referencing her last communication

with the office, which was on November 18, 2011.²⁴⁷⁴ In the letter, Bond stated that the deadline

for a possible appeal in the New York matter had “long passed.”²⁴⁷⁵ The Ethics Office

²⁴⁶⁷ Id.

²⁴⁶⁸ APA_0197614.

²⁴⁶⁹ HC00022099.

²⁴⁷⁰ Id.

²⁴⁷¹ Email from S. Bennett Johnson to T. Bond and S. Reisner (Oct. 31, 2012).

²⁴⁷² HC00007258 at 4-5.

²⁴⁷³ Childress-Beatty interview (May 19, 2015).

²⁴⁷⁴ HC00007317 at 11-12.

²⁴⁷⁵ Id.

504

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

acknowledged the receipt of her letter on September 21, 2012, and again, did not provide any

substantive information about the review of the complaint.²⁴⁷⁶ The Ethics Office sent a

substantive response to Bond on November 19, 2012, a full two months later. In the letter,

Childress-Beatty thanked Bond for confirming that the window for an appeal in the Reisner

matter had passed and stated that the “[e]xpiration of the time window for appeals assists [the

Ethics Office] in moving the ethics process forward.” ²⁴⁷⁷

According to Childress-Beatty, in addition to the materials that the Ethics Office received

from the complainants, Leso, the CJA, and Schoomaker, she was doing internet searches and

looking at additional publicly available documents to see if there was anything else on Leso’s

actions.²⁴⁷⁸

Sidley confirmed that there were several print-outs of media reports from 2008-2013

on the involvement of BSCT psychologists, though not necessarily directly about Leso,

contained in the adjudication file.

On December 15, 2012, Childress-Beatty drafted a decision memo to the 2012 Ethics

Committee Chair, Nadya Fouad, recommending that the Leso complaint be closed (the “closure

memo”).²⁴⁷⁹ Childress-Beatty also noted that staying the case to see if more information would

become available through the pending civil litigations was another option. On December 20,

2012, Fouad emailed Childress-Beatty and Behnke, recommended that the Leso complaints be

closed, and noted that she did not see “evidence of ethical violations” based on a “careful review

of the materials submitted.”²⁴⁸⁰

When Sidley interviewed Fouad, she confirmed that she

received the full adjudication file for Leso and recommended closing the complaints because she

did not see any evidence that there was a violation of the Ethics Code based on Leso’s

actions.²⁴⁸¹

In her closure memo, Childress-Beatty addressed three specific allegations against Leso:

(1) that he was the BSCT Chair; (2) that he “presided over” or was in control of interrogation

sessions; and (3) that he helped establish procedures for interrogations.²⁴⁸²

With respect to the

first allegation, Childress-Beatty explained that Leso denied that he was the Chair and that she

found “nothing that states whether Major Leso or Major Burney, a psychiatrist was the Chief

BSCT. I am not sure how the Chair was determined in 2002 […] In any event, simply being the

Chair of the BSCT would not be a violation of the Ethics Code.”²⁴⁸³

Regarding the second allegation, Childress-Beatty stated that Leso denied that he

presided over interrogations, citing to his letter in which he claimed that he was not present

²⁴⁷⁶ Id. at 10.

²⁴⁷⁷ Id. at 1.

²⁴⁷⁸ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁴⁷⁹ HC00007306.

²⁴⁸⁰ Id.

²⁴⁸¹ Fouad interview (Apr. 28, 2015).

²⁴⁸² Id.

²⁴⁸³ Id.

505

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

during “significant portions of the interrogation” and that he “did not have access to information

regarding significant aspects of the investigation.” Childress-Beatty also noted that “[i]t is clear

that the BSCT were consultants to the interrogations and not in control of the interrogations,”

citing to the Martinez-Lopez report (discussed below), the Schmidt-Furlow report (discussed

below), and the JTF GTMO SERE SOP dated December 10, 2002.²⁴⁸⁴ Finally, Childress-Beatty

stated that there were only three instances in which Leso was specifically mentioned in the

interrogation log of al-Qahtani:

x On November 23, 2002, the interrogation log states that Dr. Leso was present

when a hooded al-Qahtani was brought in, the hood was removed, and he was

bolted to the floor.

x On November 27, 2002, the interrogation log states a swivel chair was used at Dr.

Leso’s suggestion when al-Qahtani was avoiding eye contact. It is unclear

whether Dr. Leso was observing at the time or had made that suggestion earlier.

x In November of 2002, Dr. Leso was in the observation booth when a military dog

was used to intimidate al-Qahtani by being commanded to growl, show teeth and

bark in doorway of interrogation room. Dr. Leso reported this incident when

questioned by the Army investigators.²⁴⁸⁵

None of the Ethics Office investigators or Ethics Committee members with whom we

spoke thought that being present when the detainee was brought in and “bolted to the floor” was

an ethical violation. Dixon told Sidley that merely being present when the detainee was brought

in, when it was unclear whether this was done at the suggestion or direction of Leso, did not rise

to the level of an ethical violation. Bow stated without any additional evidence that Leso

suggested that the detainee be bolted to the floor, he did not view this as an ethical violation.²⁴⁸⁶

Similarly, Childress-Beatty stated that there was no indication that Leso had suggested or

participated in this.²⁴⁸⁷

Childress-Beatty also noted that it was unclear whether Leso would have

had sufficient notice in 2002 that his observance of this would have been a violation of the Ethics

Code.²⁴⁸⁸

Similarly, none of the Ethics Office investigators or Ethics Committee members with

whom we spoke thought that suggesting that a detainee be placed in a swivel chair constituted an

ethical violation. Bow told Sidley that putting someone in a swivel chair was not an ethical

violation as there was no suggestion that the purpose was to disorient the detainee.²⁴⁸⁹ Bow

thought it was possible that Leso suggested this to keep the detainee from zoning out or falling

asleep, and to put someone in a swivel chair to keep them more alert was not an ethical

²⁴⁸⁴ Id.

²⁴⁸⁵ Id.

²⁴⁸⁶ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁴⁸⁷ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁴⁸⁸ Id.

²⁴⁸⁹ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

506

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

violation.²⁴⁹⁰

Bow noted that this was similar to how prisoners were treated in the U.S. prison

system. In contrast, Dixon said that it could be assumed that the purpose of putting the detainee

in a swivel chair was to disorient him. But, she believed that disorienting someone did not rise to

a level of harm that would have constituted an ethical violation in her mind.²⁴⁹¹ Dixon was also

the only individual who recalled reviewing the OLC (Yoo/Bybee) memos and using them as a

guide in her evaluation of what constituted torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading

treatment.²⁴⁹²

Childress-Beatty similarly did not think that putting the detainee in a swivel chair

was necessarily something that was harmful, but she did not recall using the OLC memos, and

she did not think that she would have used the narrow legal definitions contained in those memos

as a guide.²⁴⁹³

The third instance regarding the use of the military dog was mentioned in the

interrogation log, but Leso’s name was not directly associated with it. Instead, the Schmidt-

Furlow report stated that a “psychologist assigned to the Behavioral Science Consultation Team

[…] witnessed the use of a MWD named ‘Zeus’ during a military interrogation of the subject of

the first Special Interrogation Plan during the November 2002 time period.”²⁴⁹⁴ It can be

deduced from the rest of the documents in the record that the subject of the interrogation was al-

Qahtani and that the psychologist was Leso. The only reviewer who clearly recalled this was

Bow, who stated that even though “it looks like Leso was in the room when it happened, nothing

indicates he promoted this or suggested it.”²⁴⁹⁵ Thus, he did not think that this could constitute

evidence for an ethics violation.

There were also four other instances in the log that referenced the presence of a “BSCT,”

but Childress-Beatty noted that it was not clear whether this referred to Leso, Burney, or the

psych tech, or “how much information was shared between them.”²⁴⁹⁶ Those were instances

were:

x On December 2, 2002, the log states ‘BSCT observation indicated that detainee

was lying during entire exchange.’

x On December 11, 2002, the log states that after the detainee began to cry and

asked to sleep in a different from the interrogation room, ‘[t]he BSCT observed

that the detainee was only trying to run an approach on the control and gain

sympathy.’

²⁴⁹⁰ Id.

²⁴⁹¹ Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁴⁹² Id.

²⁴⁹³ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁴⁹⁴ HC00022699.

²⁴⁹⁵ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁴⁹⁶ HC00007306.

507

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

x On December 25, 2002, the log states ‘Interrogator began to play cards with MP

to ignore the detainee due to a BSCT assessment that the interrogators may be

becoming the family figures of the detainee, and the interrogator wanted to see if

the detainee would try to seek attention.’

x On December 29, 2002, the log states that ‘Detainee seemed too comfortable. He

was questioned about why he was unaffected by our discussion of the victims of

9/11. Detainee immediately sat up in his chair. BSCT observed that detainee does

not like it when the interrogator points out his nonverbal responses. Detainee

professed his innocence and interrogator laughed.²⁴⁹⁷

All of the reviewers declined to attribute those actions to Leso since it was not clear who

“BSCT” would have referred to. As a result, these references did not factor into their analysis of

whether there was cause for action on the complaints.

Another key piece of evidence Childress-Beatty reviewed was the Counter-resistance

Strategy Meeting minutes from October 2, 2002, which “reflect that BSCT argued for

‘psychological stressors’ such as ‘sleep deprivation, withholding food, isolation, loss of

time.’”²⁴⁹⁸

She noted in her closure memo that even though this implied that a BSCT or the

BSCT team approved the use of these techniques, it was not clear whether “this occurred or

whether the interrogators carried out the techniques in the manner approved if they were

approved.”²⁴⁹⁹ Notably, she also wrote that “[i]t is also important to note that these techniques in

and of themselves may not be cruel, unusual, inhuman, degrading treatment or torture depending

upon factors such as the situational context, length of time used, and intensity.” ²⁵⁰⁰

In addition

to this, there was one comment from the minutes that was directly attributed to Leso: “[f]orce is

risky, and may be ineffective due to the detainees’ frame of reference. They are used to seeing

much more barbaric treatment.”²⁵⁰¹

All of the individuals Sidley interviewed stated that references to “BSCT” could not be

directly tied to Leso and confirmed that they did not take those statements into account in their

analyses. With respect to the one comment that was directly tied to Leso, Bow stated that this

was an example of Leso attempt to act ethically within the limitations of his situation.²⁵⁰²

Similarly, Childress-Beatty stated during her interview that she believed that this was an effort

by Leso to resolve the ethical conflict between his military orders and his ethical obligations, and

noted that even the statements attributable to the BSCT team generally did not rise to the level of

ethical violations.²⁵⁰³

Dixon told Sidley that she believed that EITs were being used regardless

²⁴⁹⁷ Id.

²⁴⁹⁸ Id.

²⁴⁹⁹ Id.

²⁵⁰⁰ Id.

²⁵⁰¹ HC00007370.

²⁵⁰² Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁵⁰³ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

508

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

of Leso’s involvement, so if he was trying to reduce or eliminate their use in any way, then he

was “doing the best he could” to behave ethically in that situation. Dixon did not believe that the

“camp-wide” strategies constituted an ethical violation.²⁵⁰⁴

A third key document that Childress-Beatty and the other reviewers analyzed was the

BSCT memo referenced in the 2008 SASC report. Even though Leso’s name was redacted

throughout the report, all of the reviewers agreed that they had sufficient information from the

other documents in the record such that they presumed that “BSCT psychologist” referred to

Leso. According to the report, Leso and the other BSCT member, a psychiatrist named Paul

Burney, drafted a memo of “suggested detention and interrogation policies” based on

information they learned from the JPRA SERE training at Fort Bragg. The memo contained

three categories of techniques:

Category I techniques included incentives and “mildly adverse approaches” such

as telling a detainee that he was going to be at GTMO forever unless he

cooperated.” The memorandum stated that an interrogator should be able to

ascertain whether a detainee is being cooperative by the end of the initial

interrogation and said that if Category I approaches failed to induce cooperation,

the interrogator could request approval for Category II approaches;

Category II techniques were designed for “high priority” detainees, defined in the

memo as “any detainee suspected of having significant information relative to the

security of the United States.” Category II techniques included “stress positions;

the use of isolation for up to 30 days (with the possibility of additional 30 day

periods, if authorized by the Chief Interrogator); depriving a detainee of food for

up to 12 hours (or as long as the interrogator goes without food during an

interrogation); the use of back-to-back 20 hour interrogations once per week;

removal of all comfort items including religious items; forced grooming;

handcuffing a detainee; and placing a hood on a detainee during questioning or

movement”;

The memo reserved Category III techniques “ONLY for detainees that have

evidenced advanced resistance and are suspected of having significant

information pertinent to national security” (emphasis in the original). Category III

techniques included the daily use of 20 hour interrogations, the use of strict

isolation without the right of visitation by treating medical professionals or the

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); the use of food restriction for

24 hours once a week; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that

he might experience a painful or fatal outcome; non-injurious physical

consequences; removal of clothing; and exposure to cold weather or water until

such time as the detainee began to shiver.”²⁵⁰⁵

²⁵⁰⁴ Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁵⁰⁵ HC00022487.

509

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

In addition to these specific interrogation techniques, the memo also made

recommendations for the treatment of detainees in cell blocks. Specifically, it proposed:

[R]esistant detainees might be limited to four hours of sleep a day; that they be

deprived of comfort items such as sheets, blankets, mattresses, washcloths; and

that interrogators control access to all detainees’ Korans. The BSCT memo

described using fans and generators to create a white noise as a form of

psychological pressure and advocated that “all aspects of the [detention]

environment should enhance capture shock, dislocate expectations, foster

dependence, and support exploitation to the fullest extent possible.”²⁵⁰⁶

The SASC report noted that the BSCTs were not comfortable with the memo they were

asked to produce and included a statement in the memo reflecting their concerns about the

techniques:

Experts in the field of interrogation indicate the most effective interrogation

strategy is a rapport-building approach. Interrogation techniques that rely on

physical or adverse consequences are likely to garner inaccurate information and

create an increased level of resistance…There is no evidence that the level of fear

or discomfort evoked by a given technique has any consistent correlation to the

volume or quality of information obtained…The interrogation tools outlined

could affect the short term and/or long term physical and/or mental health of the

detainee. Physical and/or emotional harm from the above techniques may emerge

months or even years after their use. It is impossible to determine if a particular

strategy will cause irreversible harm if employed…Individuals employing

Category II or Category III interrogation techniques must be thoroughly

trained…carefully selected, to include a mental health screening (such screenings

are SOP for SERE and other Special Operations personnel).²⁵⁰⁷

All of the individuals interviewed by Sidley thought that the addition of the statement

warning against the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques (“EITs”) as outlined in the

memo was key because it evidenced Leso’s attempt to act ethically within the confines of his

military duties. Dixon stated that the inclusion of this statement showed that Leso was “faced

with an impossible task” and that he did everything within his power to “stand up” for the ethics

of his profession. Dixon believed that Leso was limited in what he could do and that his memo

was outlining techniques that had already been approved by the government through the OLC

memos.²⁵⁰⁸ Bow stated that this showed Leso trying to act ethically by putting in a section

objecting to the use of EITs and advocating for rapport-building techniques.²⁵⁰⁹ Bow told Sidley

that the inclusion of the statement was key in his finding that this would not be a violation of the

Ethics Code because Leso had tried to act ethically by putting in such a section.

²⁵⁰⁶ Id.

²⁵⁰⁷ Id.

²⁵⁰⁸ Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁵⁰⁹ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

510

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Childress-Beatty stated that it was important that Leso seemed reluctant to write the

memo based on the SASC report and that he was instructed to write it by his commanding officer

at Guantanamo.²⁵¹⁰ She noted that the 1992 Ethics Code was fairly broad in that all the

psychologist was required to do was to seek to resolve the conflict between his ethical

obligations and his organizational demands (standard 8.03) and/or the law (standard 1.02). She

believed that the inclusion of the section arguing against the use of the EITs was Leso’s attempt

to resolve the conflict and that it was in line with his other actions, such as speaking up at the

Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting.²⁵¹¹ But, Childress-Beatty could not point to any evidence

demonstrating that Leso actually made “known [his] commitment to the Ethics Code,” and

Sidley could not find any in the record.²⁵¹² Childress-Beatty also emphasized that the critique

that Leso should have refused to write the memo and accepted the consequences of disobeying

an unethical military order was beside the point because “that was not what the Ethics Code

require[d].”²⁵¹³

In defense of Leso, Childress-Beatty cited to multiple government reports as evidence

that weighed against the likelihood that the Ethics Committee would find ethical violations even

though most of the reports did not specifically reference Leso, and none directly addressed the

APA Ethics Code. One of the reports she referenced in her closure memo was the “The Army

Regulation 15-6: Final Report - Investigation into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse at

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Detention Facility” (the Schmidt-Furlow report). The investigation

documented in this report began in June 2004 and examined any mistreatment or aggressive

behavior towards detainees at Guantanamo Bay dating back to September 11, 2001. The report

found (1) three acts that were in violation of “interrogation techniques authorized by the Army

Field Manual 34-52 and DoD guidance”; (2) the commander of JTF-GTMO failed to monitor the

interrogation of one high value detainee in late 2002; (3) the interrogation of the same high value

detainee resulted in degrading and abusive treatment but did not rise to the level of being

inhumane treatment; and (4) communication of a threat to another high value detainee was in

violation of SECDEF guidance and the UCMJ. The report found no evidence of “torture or

inhumane treatment at JTF-GTMO.”²⁵¹⁴

Based on Sidley’s review of the report, it is clear that the report did not address the

question of whether any psychologists violated the APA Ethics Code. The fact that the report

did not find any evidence of “torture or inhumane treatment” at Guantanamo is not the same as

not finding any evidence that there was a failure to comply with the Ethics Code, but the report

was nevertheless included in Childress-Beatty’s analysis. Childress-Beatty told Sidley that she

would not have looked at the report with “that level of specificity”²⁵¹⁵ to determine whether the

²⁵¹⁰ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁵¹¹ Id.

²⁵¹² Childress-Beatty interview (June 2, 2015).

²⁵¹³ Id.

²⁵¹⁴ HC00022699.

²⁵¹⁵ Id.

511

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

investigation was looking at the APA Ethics Code, and that she “had no idea what standard they

were using.”²⁵¹⁶

Another government report Childress-Beatty referenced in her closure memo was the

“Department of the Army: Approval of Findings and Recommendations of Functional

Assessment Team Concerning Detainee Medical Operations for OEF, GTMO, and OIF” report

(the Martinez-Lopez report). The investigation documented in this report was conducted

between November 23, 2004 and April 13, 2005 and consisted of interviews conducted with

1,182 individuals who served as past, present, and future deployed personnel to all three

locations, including six past BSCT members and five BSCT members who were present at the

time, and seven who were assigned to GTMO and four who were assigned to OIF. The report

concluded that “[t]here is no indication that any medical personnel participated in abusive

interrogation practices; in fact, there is clear evidence that BSCT personnel took appropriate

action and reported any questionable activities when observed,” and that “BSCT personnel

served as protectors, much like a safety officers [sic] to ensure the health and welfare of the

detainee under interrogation.”²⁵¹⁷

In Sidley’s review of the report, it is similarly clear that the report did not address any

questions about whether psychologists who were serving in the BSCT role violated the APA

Ethics Code. There were no references to Leso by name, and it was entirely unclear from the

report who the investigators interviewed as BSCT members. Even though there was nothing

tying any of the report’s conclusions directly to Leso, and this report was as much speculative

evidence as the documents that Childress-Beatty disregarded, it was nevertheless included in her

memo as evidence weighing against the finding of an ethical violation.

Finally, Childress-Beatty referenced a statement from Schoomaker’s letter in her closure

memo and stated that “[w]e also have a report that two senior Army psychologists specifically

reviewed Dr. Leso’s involvement and found that he had worked to protect the safety of the

detainees.”²⁵¹⁸

This statement was misleading for two reasons. First, Schoomaker’s letter on

behalf of Leso could hardly be considered a “report” in that it did not provide any details as to

who conducted the review of Leso’s actions (other than the fact that they were two senior Army

psychologists), what they reviewed, and what standard they were reviewing his actions against.

In fact, Schoomaker’s “report” was only one sentence in his letter, which was a blanket

statement that the two senior Army psychologists had not found any evidence that “Leso

behaved in an unethical manner or harmed anyone in any way.” The statement that “Dr. Leso

worked diligently to protect the safety of the detainees” was not even attributed to the two senior

Army psychologists; instead, it was attributed to “information from those who served with

[Leso].” Second, the language in Childress-Beatty’s memo could be read to suggest that the

Ethics Office actually received the Army psychologists’ report, which it did not. The description

of the “report” in the memo implied a certain level of credibility that the other reviewers, namely

²⁵¹⁶ Id.

²⁵¹⁷ Kevin Kiley, Memorandum re Approval of Findings and Recommendations of Martinez-Lopez

Report (May 24, 2005), available at

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/OathBetrayed/Army%20Surgeon%20General%20Report.pdf.

²⁵¹⁸ HC00007306.

512

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Bow, might not have given it. Specifically, Bow stated in his interview, he did not weigh the

letter from Schoomaker very heavily because he knew that the Army “protect[s] its own.”²⁵¹⁹

Childress-Beatty further wrote in her memo that Leso “argued against the use of harsh

tactics in several key ways,” but the only evidence referenced in the closure memo were Leso’s

statement from the Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting discussed earlier (“[f]orce is risky, and

may be ineffective due to the detainees’ frame of reference. They are used to seeing much more

barbaric treatment), and the section of the BSCT memo that argued against the use of the very

same techniques that Leso had just personally drafted. To say that these two documents

demonstrated that Leso argued against the use of EITs in “several key ways” is simply an

exaggeration. Yet Childress-Beatty told Sidley that there was “little evidence on what Leso did

do that would be unethical, and a lot of evidence showing that he worked against [EITs].”²⁵²⁰

When Sidley asked what constituted “a lot” of evidence, Childress-Beatty confirmed that these

were the only two pieces of evidence she was referring to.²⁵²¹

Ultimately Childress-Beatty recommended closing the Leso matter because it was her

belief that, based on the evidence, the allegations were “speculative and there [was] a reasonable

basis to believe that the allegations cannot be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (Part II,

section 5.5).”²⁵²²

Under Part V, Subsection 5.5, when deciding whether to open a case, the Chair

and Director consider whether “(a) there is a reasonable basis to believe the alleged violation

cannot be proved by a preponderance of the evidence and (b) the allegations would constitute

only minor or technical violations that would not warrant further action, have already been

adequately addressed in another forum, or are likely to be corrected.”²⁵²³ If one or more of the

conditions is met the matter shall be closed.

In her closure memo, Childress-Beatty wrote that the Counter-resistance Strategy

Meeting minutes reflected that the BSCT argued for “psychological stressors” such as “sleep

deprivation, withholding food, isolation, loss of time.” Yet Childress-Beatty questioned whether

these techniques were, in fact, ethical violations. She wrote: “It is also important to note that

these techniques in and of themselves may not be cruel, unusual, inhuman, degrading treatment

or torture depending upon factors such as the situational context, length of time used, and

intensity.”²⁵²⁴

This view is inconsistent with what Ethics Director, Stephen Behnke, told

Sidley—that most of these techniques should have been prohibited, especially in light of the

PENS Report. Moreover, suggesting that sleep deprivation, isolation, withholding food, and loss

of time could not be proved to be ethical violations by a preponderance of the evidence is

stretching the bounds of the Code so as to not find a violation of any standard. This statement

²⁵¹⁹ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁵²⁰ Childress-Beatty interview (June 2, 2015).

²⁵²¹ Id.

²⁵²² HC00007306

²⁵²³ Rules, Part V, Section 5.5

²⁵²⁴ Id.

513

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

suggests that a psychologist may be able to ethically recommend that a detainee outside the

criminal justice system be deprived of food or sleep and placed in isolation for the purpose of

tyring to conduct an effective interrogation. Although the effect of these techniques is dependent

on the amount of time involved, it is significant that it might ever be considered ethical for a

psychologist to recommend using these techniques against a detainee. And it is certainly not a

conclusion that we are aware of the Ethics Office or Ethics Committee ever making publicly.

The only way for APA to close the Leso matter using the standards in the Rules was to call

interrogation techniques “potentially ethical” in light of APA’s supposedly vague ethical

standards.

Closing of the Leso complaints

Despite Fouad’s decision to close the complaint at the end of 2012, Childress-Beatty

stated that the Ethics Office decided to hold open the Leso complaints a while longer to see if

any additional information would become publicly available through two pending litigations, and

to ask James Bow, the incoming Ethics Committee Chair, to review the full file since he was

going to be the one to “live with the decision.”²⁵²⁵ Childress-Beatty also explained that it was

important to them that Bow was a forensic psychologist, who was used to dealing with the

analysis of different types of evidence in his line of work. At this time, the Ethics Office staff

were waiting on the outcomes of two cases: (1) a civil suit in SDNY filed by the Center for

Constitutional Rights, challenging the government’s denial of its January 2012 FOIA request for

certain videos and photographs of Mohammed al-Qahtani’s interrogation; and (2) Al-Qahtani’s

habeas corpus case, also filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which was filed in October

2005, and had been stayed at that time. On April 17, 2013, Childress-Beatty provided an update

to Bow on the two outstanding litigation matters and noted that the Constitution Project task

force released a report on the treatment of detainees that was going to be added to the Leso file.

By November 10, 2013, the decision was made to close the Leso complaints as both the FOIA

and habeas corpus matters did not look like they would yield any additional release of

information into the public domain, and the Constitution Project task force report did not contain

any new information on Leso’s involvement at Guantanamo.

On December 31, 2013, the Ethics Office notified Shaw, Bond, and Leso that it would

not be proceeding with formal charges based on its review of the “submissions and public

information available to date, including information released in November 2013.”²⁵²⁶ Thus, the

complaints against Leso were closed—after the preliminary investigation state—and without

opening a case. The letter to the complainants explained that the complaints remained open for

an extended period of time “while information directly relevant to this matter continued to be

released into the public domain.” The letter also stated the following:

During the review process, it was essential to separate strong feelings about the

treatment of detainees in U.S. custody from the task of carefully analyzing the

available information in this particular matter in accordance with the Ethics

Committee’s Rules and Procedures. In reviewing an ethics complaint, the Ethics

²⁵²⁵ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁵²⁶ HC00007293 at 4-6.

514

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Committee must adhere to its Rules and Procedures. The Committee bears the

burden of proving charges of unethical behavior against a respondent (Rules and

Procedures, Part V, section 5.5(a)). The behavior must be directly attributable to

the respondent. It cannot be speculative or based on supposition concerning what

occurred.

***

Information released into the public domain to date includes that the respondent,

an early career psychologist trained as a health care provider, did not request to

become involved with detainee interrogations but was rather informed that he

would be in the role of behavioral science consultant (“BSC”) only after he

arrived in Guantanamo Bay in the summer of 2002. At that time, the military

lacked a standard operating procedure for the BSC role. APA did not issue its first

policy on interrogations until three years later, in 2005. Available evidence in the

public domain also includes that, in the face of pressure from the highest level of

the Bush Administration which strongly supported ‘enhanced’ interrogation

tactics, the respondent sought consultation and argued against such approaches

and in favor of rapport-building approaches.²⁵²⁷

Due to the way complaints were evaluated during the preliminary investigation phase,

and due to the fact that all of the aforementioned analysis happened before any formal charges

were considered under the Rules, none of the analysis in Childress-Beatty’s memo was actually

tied to any specific Ethics Code standard. In fact, both Dixon and Childress-Beatty told Sidley

that they did not ever reach the stage of considering what specific ethical standards might have

been violated because they were still in the “evidence-gathering” phase.²⁵²⁸ Once they

determined that there was enough evidence to meet the “preponderance of the evidence”

standard, then they looked to the Ethics Code to figure out what standards might be appropriate

to charge. The result was, therefore, a rather backwards-process wherein the determination was

made about whether there could be a violation of an ethical standard before any ethical standards

were even considered.

By the time the Leso complaints were closed, a total of six individuals had reviewed at

least some of the documents contained in the adjudication file. Four individuals recalled

reviewing the full record and all of the evidence, including Fouad, Bow, Dixon, and Childress-

Beatty. In addition, Stan Jones recalled reviewing at least part of the record. According to

Childress-Beatty, Jones was asked to review the initial complaint filed by Shaw because the

Ethics Office thought that the matter would get too politically heated for an APA employee to

review.²⁵²⁹

Childress-Beatty said that Jones had remained an active consultant to the Ethics

Office since he left his position as the Director and had a reputation for being incredibly

²⁵²⁷ Id.

²⁵²⁸ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015); Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁵²⁹ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

515

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

meticulous. When Sidley spoke to Behnke, he did not recall whether he reviewed all of the

evidence and stated that he entrusted the adjudication of the Leso matter to Childress-Beatty.²⁵³⁰

All of the individuals who recalled reviewing the evidence in the Leso complaint told

Sidley that they believed there was insufficient guidance for psychologists involved in

interrogation settings in 2002-2003 and that the Ethics Code did not offer clear or specific

guidance on what behaviors were, or were not, permissible under the standards. According to

Dixon, while it might have been clear that some of the “really bad” behaviors, such as

waterboarding, were obviously not permitted under the Ethics Code, behaviors that were more in

the “gray area” were less clear.²⁵³¹

In particular, Childress-Beatty thought that there was a

significant issue with the lack of notice provided by the specific standards in the Ethics Code.

She noted that even if there had been APA policies and guidelines, they were not the same as the

standards in the Ethics Code and they would not have been enforceable. As a result, she did not

think that Leso could be charged under any existing Ethics Code standards.²⁵³² When asked why

Leso could not be charged under standard 1.14 (avoiding harm) under the 1992 Ethics Code,

Childress-Beatty responded that the Ethics Office had been advised by the General Counsel’s

office that the standard was too vague to be charged as a stand-alone charge, and that it would

typically have to be accompanied by a charge based on another standard.²⁵³³ Even though

Behnke did not recall whether he had reviewed the entire Leso complaint file, he confirmed that

“there was always a feeling that 3.04 [the equivalent of 1.14 from the 2002 Ethics Code] would

be charged in conjunction with something else because people felt that it was very vague.”

Behnke stated that the General Counsel’s office would have advised them of this.²⁵³⁴ But, when

Sidley interviewed Nathalie Gilfoyle, she had no such impression about the limitations of

charging 1.14 (or 3.04) as a stand-alone standard, and did not think she would have instructed

anyone to not charge 1.14 (or 3.04) by itself.²⁵³⁵

What the individuals who reviewed the Leso matter told Sidley, made clear that they felt

somewhat sympathetic towards Leso’s predicament at Guantanamo and that this could have

influenced their decision to close the complaints. For instance, during Dixon told Sidley that

Leso (1) “wasn’t a major player”; (2) he did not want to be assigned to the BSCT role when he

arrived at GTMO, and in fact, did not know he would be assigned to such a role until he arrived;

and (3) he seemed reluctant in the things he was asked to do, such as drafting the BSCT memo in

2002.²⁵³⁶

Dixon explained that it was significant to her that Leso seemed limited in what he

could do within the confines of the military and that he was faced with “an impossible task.”²⁵³⁷

Similarly, Bow told Sidley that Leso had no guidance while he was at Guantanamo and that he

²⁵³⁰ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015).

²⁵³¹ Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁵³² Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁵³³ Id.

²⁵³⁴ Behnke interview (May 21, 2015).

²⁵³⁵ Gilfoyle interview (May 28, 2015).

²⁵³⁶ Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁵³⁷ Id.

516

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

was “in no-man’s land” with heavy pressures from his commanding officers.²⁵³⁸ While Bow

acknowledged that psychologists have an obligation to act ethically no matter what type of

situation they are in, there are “mitigating-type of things” that could be considered in deciding

whether or not to bring ethics charges against someone.²⁵³⁹ This sentiment was echoed by the

Ethics Office in their closing letters to the complainants (see discussion above).

All of the reviewers of the Leso complaint emphasized that they needed to find “direct”

evidence that tied Leso to behaviors that were allegedly torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading

treatment, and that any evidence that could not be “directly” attributed to Leso was discounted.

But, this appears to have been contrary to the stance taken by the Ethics Office on the

involvement of psychologists in such activities. For instance, on March 27, 2007, in an email

from Behnke to Bond before she filed her complaint, Behnke stated the following:

Any psychologist participation in a torture interrogation is absolutely prohibited.

It makes no difference whether the psychologist’s participation is direct or

indirect, supervisory, central or peripheral: Any psychologist participation in a

torture interrogation is prohibited (emphasis added).²⁵⁴⁰

Even though the email exchange was not specific to the adjudications process, to suggest

that any psychologist participation in torture, whether direct or indirect, was prohibited, and then

to limit the adjudications process to only an evaluation of “direct” pieces of evidence was quite

misleading.

All of the reviewers also told Sidley that they independently thought it was the right

decision to close the Leso complaints and that they did not feel pressure to make a decision one

way or another. Bow stated that he approached the complaint like a forensics case, focused on

the evidence that directly linked Leso to specific behaviors, and tried to ignore “the noise”

generated by media reports.²⁵⁴¹ Bow understood the standard for bringing a case before the full

Committee to be a “preponderance of the evidence” that the behavior will most likely result in a

sanction. He felt that the matter was complicated by the fact that (1) much of the information

was classified and/or redacted; (2) Leso was limited in his response letters due to his position in

the military; and (3) much of the publicly available information did not specifically refer to

Leso.²⁵⁴²

He recalled that he discussed the matter extensively with Childress-Beatty and Behnke

during the course of his review, and noted that all three of them agreed to close the case even

though they were aware of the backlash it would generate.²⁵⁴³ Finally, Bow confirmed that the

case remained open for an unusually long period of time because they were waiting for more

information to be released publicly, specifically as a result of the FOIA case filed by the ACLU

for the videotapes of the al-Qahtani interrogation and the habeas corpus case filed by al-

²⁵³⁸ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁵³⁹ Id.

²⁵⁴⁰ APA_0064994.

²⁵⁴¹ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁵⁴² Id.

²⁵⁴³ Id.

517

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Qahtani’s lawyers, in the hopes that some direct evidence would surface about Leso’s

actions.²⁵⁴⁴

At the same time, they did not want the matter to remain open indefinitely and when

it seemed like no additional information was going to be made available in the near future, they

closed it.

Dixon told Sidley that while the Leso complaint generated much controversy, she

believed that the evidence showed that Leso worked within his environment to reduce harm to

the detainees. Dixon said that she would have closed the complaint much earlier based on the

evidence submitted by the complainants and did not think that the matter needed to be kept open

for so long waiting for additional information to be released into the public domain.²⁵⁴⁵ Dixon

did not think that there was sufficient evidence to bring the matter before the full Committee and

stated that they did not want “any political influence of any kind.”²⁵⁴⁶ She believed that any

decision to move forward to the full Committee would have been the result of external pressures

from critics of the APA, and that succumbing to such pressures would have been wrong.²⁵⁴⁷

Ultimately, Dixon believed that Leso was being treated as a “scapegoat” for all of the abuses at

GTMO even though he was only stationed there for six months, and that many alleged abuses

were “unfairly attributed” to Leso by the complainants.²⁵⁴⁸

Childress-Beatty told Sidley that she was the one who was primarily responsible for

reviewing the Leso complaints toward the later years, and that she actively searched within the

public domain for any additional information that was released about Leso. She explained that

this was an “extraordinary” step to take because the Ethics Office typically did not proactively

look for additional information beyond what was submitted in the complaints. According to

Childress-Beatty, the Leso complaint was closed under Part V, subsections 5.1 and 5.5.²⁵⁴⁹ As

such, evidence that did not directly tie Leso to a specific behavior that would have constituted a

breach of ethics was disregarded in Childress-Beatty’s analysis. Examples of this included: (1)

the complainant’s claim that Leso was the “Chair” of the BSCT when there was no evidence as

to what Leso’s title was; (2) the complainant’s claim that since “BSCT” was never used in

connection with another individual in the Al-Qahtani interrogation log, other references to

“BSCT” should be presumed to be Leso unless proven otherwise; and (3) the complainant’s

claim that Leso was present throughout the interrogation log even though there were no

indications of when Leso entered or left the room.²⁵⁵⁰ When asked whether the Ethics Office

could have taken into account speculative evidence given the nature of the complaint and the fact

that the Rules set out a permissive “may” standard, Childress-Beatty responded “theoretically,

²⁵⁴⁴ Id.

²⁵⁴⁵ Dixon interview (May 12, 2015).

²⁵⁴⁶ Id.

²⁵⁴⁷ Id.

²⁵⁴⁸ Id.

²⁵⁴⁹ Under Part V, subsection 5.1, cause for action exists when the respondent’s alleged actions and/or

omissions, if proved, would in the judgment of the decision maker constitute a breach of ethics. For

purposes of determining whether cause for action exists, incredible, speculative, and/or internally

inconsistent allegations may be disregarded.”

²⁵⁵⁰ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

518

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

yes, but that is not the way we think about complaints.”²⁵⁵¹ Childress-Beatty emphasized the

need for “specific behaviors” and “data points” that could be used to tie Leso to the allegedly

unethical actions.²⁵⁵²

Reactions to the closing of the Leso complaint

On February 20, 2014, the APA issued the “Statement by the APA Board of Directors on

the ‘No Cause for Action’ Decision Regarding the Ethics Complaint against Dr. John Leso.”

Many have pointed to one sentence from the statement as particularly problematic—“[r]easons

for this conclusion included…multiple reviews conducted by individuals with access to

classified material found no evidence of wrongdoing and affirmative evidence of safeguarding

detainees…” All reviewers of the Leso complaints confirmed to Sidley that this was not a

reference to any evidence reviewed by APA; instead, it was a reference to the multiple military

reports issued on the treatment of detainees that the reviewers examined.

Those who reviewed the Leso complaints told Sidley that they were concerned that the

Ethics Committee, the Board of Directors, and the Executive Management Group would react

negatively to the decision to close the Leso complaint. Behnke, Childress-Beatty, and Bow

prepared a presentation on the decision and presented it to all three groups in 2014. All three

recalled that some members of the Ethics Committee thought that the case should have been

brought before the full Committee and disagreed with the decision. Childress-Beatty said that it

would have been “infinitely easier” to charge Leso and to bring it to the full Committee, but that

it would have been wrong to let the political climate affect their normal adjudications

process.²⁵⁵³

Bow recalled that one Committee member in particular disagreed strongly with the

decision to close the case, but he believed that it was nevertheless the right decision.²⁵⁵⁴ With

respect to the Board of Directors and the EMG, Bow recalled that most of the members were

supportive of the decision, although some stated that it should have been brought before the full

Committee.²⁵⁵⁵ Bow did not recall anyone in particular who voiced this opinion. Childress-

Beatty recalled that Norman Anderson was skeptical of the decision to close the complaints, and

that the rest of the Board had similar reactions.²⁵⁵⁶

She also recalled that Rhea Farberman, in

particular, was under the impression that the full Ethics Committee had reviewed the Leso

complaints and Childress-Beatty had to correct her.²⁵⁵⁷ Childress-Beatty said that they

repeatedly emphasized that closing the complaint was not the same as exoneration; it simply

meant that they did not have enough evidence to proceed. Childress-Beatty believed that there

²⁵⁵¹ Childress-Beatty interview (June 2, 2015).

²⁵⁵²Id.

²⁵⁵³ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁵⁵⁴ Bow interview (May 11, 2015).

²⁵⁵⁵ Id.

²⁵⁵⁶ Childress-Beatty interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁵⁵⁷ Id.

519

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

was a general sense that the Board and the EMG did not have a good understanding of the

adjudications process.²⁵⁵⁸

Larry James

On December 5, 2007, the Ethics Office received a complaint filed by Trudy Bond

against Larry James. The complaint alleged that James was the “commander of the Guantanamo

Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs) from January 2003 to mid-May 2003, during a

time when the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported the most serious

abuses at Guantanamo.” Bond stated that under James’s “command and supervision,”

psychologists from the military’s SERE program were “instructed to apply their expertise in

abusive interrogation techniques conducted by the DoD in Guantanamo.” In the complaint,

Bond also stated that she was “aware that Colonel James has denied the use of SERE techniques

but the facts speak to his knowledge and military command of [BSCTs] who utilized SERE

techniques.”²⁵⁵⁹

Bond cited to the following three documents as support for her allegations: (1)

the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Report of GTMO; (2) the Review of DoD-

Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse (Report No. 06-INTEL-10) produced by the Office of

the DoD Inspector General dated August 25, 2006; and (3) the Camp Delta Standard Operating

Procedure Manual dated February 2003. On December 12, 2007, Behnke assigned Stanley Jones

as the investigator for this complaint.²⁵⁶⁰

On December 20, 2007, Jones drafted a decision memo to the then-Ethics Committee

Chair, Deutsch, and recommended that the case be closed without any further action. Jones did

not think that the alleged actions, if proved, would constitute a violation of any of the ethical

standards. In the memo, Jones identified the complainant as a “third-party” with “no direct

knowledge of respondent’s behaviors at issue.”²⁵⁶¹ In reviewing the complaint, Jones did not

review the underlying documents cited by Bond because they were not attached to the complaint

and could not be accessed online “without accessing premium content” via the The New York

Times and Wall Street Journal websites.²⁵⁶² Instead, Jones relied on the excerpts included in the

complaint and assumed that they were accurate quotes from the documents. Thus, Jones did not

review any additional information that was not included in the complaint form itself.²⁵⁶³ Nor did

he take any affirmative investigative steps (although he would have been permitted to do so

under Part V, Subsection 5.3.3 of the Rules), which was consistent with the general investigative

practice of the Ethics Office.

Jones concluded that the complaint did not allege that the respondent “directly engaged”

in behaviors that the ICRC report described as “tantamount to torture” and there was no evidence

to suggest that he was, in fact, directly involved. This seems to suggest that Bond would have

²⁵⁵⁸ Id.

²⁵⁵⁹ HC00017493at 1-12.

²⁵⁶⁰ HC00021372.

²⁵⁶¹ HC00017476.

²⁵⁶² Id.

²⁵⁶³ Id.

520

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

had to provide evidence to show that James actually participated in an interrogation that was

tantamount to torture in order to find a cause for action. A plain reading of the Rules, however,

shows that they do not require this heightened level of proof; under the Rules, a cause for action

“shall exist when the respondent’s alleged actions and/or omissions, if proved, would in the

judgment of the decision maker constitute a breach.”²⁵⁶⁴

Jones’s memo also addressed the issue of notice. Despite APA’s policies on

interrogations issued since the alleged behavior, Jones wrote that he did not see “how it can be

reasonably determined that a member would have known in 2003 that isolation (and the other

listed behaviors) aimed at creating a degree of disorientation, disorganization, and dependence

on the interrogator would violate any standards in the current ethics code.”²⁵⁶⁵ Jones told Sidley

that his concern was whether a psychologist would have had “notice that the 2002 Ethics Code

meant that they could not be involved in activities that might create a degree of disorientation,

disorganization, and dependence,” and that he believed what James was allegedly doing “did not

appear to violate the 2002 Code.”²⁵⁶⁶ At the time Jones was considering the complaint, he also

questioned whether the alleged behaviors would violated APA’s policy statements as of 2007.

He was unsure of whether the alleged behavior would be unethical under those standards.

Jones also told Sidley that he was limited to reviewing the evidence contained in the

complaint based on how the adjudications process was handled, and that on the face of the

complaint alone, he did not think there was sufficient evidence for cause for action.

The day before New Year’s Eve, on December 30, 2007, ten days after receiving Jones’s

memo, Deutsch responded that she agreed with the decision to close the complaint. She

wrote,“[w]e would need documentation that the respondent engaged in torture or behaviors that

caused ‘significant pain or suffering’ or harm, and none was provide.”²⁵⁶⁷ Based on Jones’s

recommendation, the complaint against James was officially closed on May 29, 2008 in the

internal Ethics Office tracking system. We did not find any indication that any further actions

were taken by the Ethics Office in this matter between the date of Jones’ memo, December 20,

2007, and the date the case was closed, May 29, 2008.

Unlike the Leso complaint, which was kept open for approximately seven years, the

James complaint was closed within a month of the Ethics Office having received the

complaint—disposed of in truly lightning speed so that Deutsch could review it before her

Chairmanship was finished. Jones told Sidley that he believed the Leso and James complaints

were “substantially different” and that his decision with respect to the James complaint was that

there was enough to conclude that it “did not meet cause.”²⁵⁶⁸ Behnke told Sidley that he did not

review the James complaint carefully because he had trusted in the judgment of others in the

²⁵⁶⁴ Rules, Part V, Subsection 5.1.

²⁵⁶⁵ Id.

²⁵⁶⁶ Jones interview (May 14, 2015).

²⁵⁶⁷ HC00017473.

²⁵⁶⁸ Id.

521

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ETHICS ADJUDICATIONS

Ethics Office, namely the investigators and Childress-Beatty.²⁵⁶⁹ Thus, he could not explain

what accounted for the differences between the two cases. Behnke speculated that the James

complaint may have been closed quickly because the allegations lacked the requisite level of

specificity whereas the Leso complaint identified some behaviors that were directly linked to

Leso.²⁵⁷⁰

The way in which the Ethics Office handled the James complaint was technically

permissible under the Rules—but it demonstrates some clear flaws in the adjudications process.

Specifically, it shows the very limited way in which the Ethics Office reviews complaint, the

way in which the Ethics Office stretches to construe the Rules in a way that is favorable to the

accused, and the extent to which the Ethics Offic relies on the rationale that standards in the

Ethics Code were too vague to give psychologists notice that certain interrogation techniques

were unethical.

²⁵⁶⁹ During Childress-Beatty’s interview, she told Sidley that even though she was listed as the

investigator on the James complaint, Jones was the “only one who actually looked at it substantively.”

Childress-Beatty stated that she was “just the go-between, passing stuff to [Jones].” Childress-Beatty

interview (May 13, 2015).

²⁵⁷⁰ Id.

522

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

FINANCIAL REVIEW

Sidley conducted an analysis of APA’s finances to assess whether any payments to APA

from relevant parts of the government may have influenced APA’s actions relating to the PENS

Task Force, revisions to APA’s Ethics Code, or its positions on national security interrogations.

This analysis began broadly by reviewing summary financial information, before conducting an

in-depth analysis of areas of possible interest. As part of this analysis, Sidley collected financial

records from APA and interviewed APA Finance Office personnel. APA provided complete and

prompt cooperation with all requests, though some requested data was no longer available.²⁵⁷¹

This analysis did not reveal any significant or unusual payments to APA from DoD, the

CIA, or other national security agencies. Some payments to APA from relevant agencies were

identified, but these payments were generally very minor when compared with APA’s overall

revenue, were in line with what other entities were paying APA for similar services, and were for

legitimate purposes.

A summary of the findings supporting this conclusion is below.

APA FINANCIAL BACKGROUND

The investigation reviewed consolidated audited financial statements for APA and APA

Practice Organization (“APAPO”) for the years 2000-2013.²⁵⁷² Between the years 2001 and

2006, the annual combined gross revenue ranged between approximately 90 million dollars and

120 million dollars. The largest sources of revenue were from member dues, journal

subscriptions, licensing, publication sales, and rental income. The tables below display the total

²⁵⁷¹ Specifically, requested data pertaining to the sources of advertising revenue reflected in certain

general ledger entries for the years 2001 and 2002 could not be located.

²⁵⁷² APAPO is a 501(c)(6) organization that lobbies Congress and state legislatures. The members of the

APA Board of Directors are also members of the APAPO Board of Directors. The APA does not provide

financial support for the APAPO, and the APAPO reimburses the APA for accounting services provided.

We did not examine the finances of other APA-affiliated entities, because of the lack of direct financial

ties between them, except as noted below. First, there are 54 APA Divisions, which represent sub-

disciplines of psychology. Each APA Division sets its own dues structure, which is not controlled by the

APA itself. Funds received by the Divisions do not flow to APA. Second, the American Psychological

Foundation (“APF”) provides financial support for research and scholarships. The APF is separately

incorporated from the APA, though some members of the APA Board of Directors serve ex officio on the

APF’s Board of Directors. The APA provides $100,000 to the APF annually, and the APF does not

provide any direct financial support to the APA. Finally, the APA Insurance Trust (“APAIT”) sells

professional liability insurance to APA members and nonmembers. The APAIT was established by the

APA in 1962 as a separate and distinct legal entity from the APA, and we were given no reason to believe

that funds would flow to the benefit of APA from APAIT. Prior to 2013, the APA CEO and Treasurer

served as ex officio Trustees of the APAIT, but in that year, the relationship between the APAIT and the

APA was restructured to remove APA involvement in the APAIT’s internal governance.

523

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

FINANCIAL REVIEW

revenue received by APA and APAPO for the years 2001-2006, along with details about those

categories of revenue that exceeded one million dollars per year.²⁵⁷³

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Total revenue

$94,048,878

$98,159,132

$100,863,532

$102,678,401

$120,329,785

$119,677,456

Member Dues

$18,398,595

$17,203,085

$16,801,391

$18,033,963

$18,788,920

$19,022,989

Journal

$19,828,219

$20,153,688

$20,387,491

$19,989,641

$18,902,262

$17,891,040

Subscriptions

Advertising

$3,298,687

$3,015,164

$2,926,687

$3,279,059

$3,654,796

$3,410,947

Licensing,

Royalties, and

$13,588,162

$17,716,381

$18,312,592

$20,348,078

$31,037,263

$32,970,454

Rights

Sales of Other

$11,093,480

$12,334,403

$13,299,914

$12,873,648

$15,450,753

$15,230,048

Publications

Grants and

$4,491,765

$5,465,245

$4,860,810

$5,333,644

$6,585,390

$6,403,849

Contracts

Convention and

$2,209,158

$2,082,608

$1,599,116

$1,859,825

$2,363,669

$1,938,409

Conference Fees

Service and

$2,773,254

$2,906,917

$3,178,322

$2,379,378

$2,706,978

$2,818,574

Application Fees

Rental Income

$13,110,110

$12,067,131

$13,628,561

$13,870,569

$14,820,031

$13,634,720

Pass-through

Expense

$1,626,631

$1,745,969

$1,158,449

$1,740,144

$2,316,081

$2,167,434

Reimbursements

Other Revenues

$2,037,954

$2,261,903

$3,576,220

$1,934,718

$2,267,863

$1,959,535

II.

ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN REVENUE TYPES

As shown in the chart above, several of APA’s major sources of revenue were either

relatively stable or in decline in the 2000-2006 time period, including member dues, journal

subscriptions, and rental income. Steps taken to investigate APA’s revenue types, and the

findings that resulted, are described below.

Advertising Revenue

APA receives revenue for advertisements placed in its publications. The investigation

focused on advertisements purchased by federal agencies in the years 2001-2006, and

distinguished between advertisements purchased by (1) those agencies that have national security

or homeland defense as their primary mission national security or homeland defense (“Security

Agencies”), and (2) other federal agencies (“Other Federal Agencies”). The category of Security

Agencies includes, for example, DoD and the branches of the military, the CIA, and the

Department of Homeland Security. The category of Other Federal Agencies includes, for

example, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The

²⁵⁷³ These tables omit information about categories of revenue amounting to less than one million dollars

per year. These categories are (1) interest income, (2) mailing list rental, and (3) contributions to the

APAPO.

524

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

FINANCIAL REVIEW

advertising revenue received by APA from each of these groups is summarized in the table

below.

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Security Agency

$8,516

$8,960

$15,675

$17,475

$35,477

$57,254

Advertising Revenue

Other Federal Agency

$45,525

$29,572

$33,720

$44,445

$49,529

$55,013

Advertising Revenue

As explained previously, between 1991 and 2004, APA did not accept advertisements

from the Department of Defense or the branches of the military because of the military’s

discriminatory policy regarding gays and lesbians at the time. In 2005, APA’s advertising

revenue from Security Agencies rose in part because APA received $12,400 in advertising

revenue from the U.S. Navy in that year.

Throughout this period, the Security Agency making the largest purchases of

advertisements from APA was the CIA. The table below summarizes the funds APA received

from the CIA for advertisements in each of these years.²⁵⁷⁴

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Advertising Revenue

$5,823

$7,400

$13,287

$17,475

$19,771

$42,970

from the CIA

The reason for the increase in advertising revenue from the CIA, especially from 2005 to

2006, could not be determined from the records provided by APA. The records showed that the

amounts paid by the CIA for each ad it purchased were basically stable throughout the period,

and the rates paid were similar to those paid by other purchasers of advertising. According to

published reports, the CIA substantially increased funding for recruitment and outreach in

around 2004,²⁵⁷⁵ but it could not be confirmed that this is the reason for the increase. However,

given the relative small dollar amount, we did not attach significance to the increase.

Licensing, Royalties and Rights

APA holds the rights to a large number of publications, including books and journal

articles. It grants licenses to those publications for databases such as PsychNet and PsychInfo,

and leases access to those databases to third party institutions, such as libraries and universities.

APA characterizes revenue received in exchange for its publications as licensing, royalties and

rights. Of these three categories, the largest by far is licensing. For instance, in 2005, the

²⁵⁷⁴ The APA provides a 15% discount on advertisements in its publications that are purchased through

recognized in-house or external advertising agencies. This discount does not apply to classified ads or

surcharges for color ads. Advertisements purchased by the CIA were routinely given this discount.

These figures reflect the non-discounted price.

²⁵⁷⁵ See, e.g., Siobhan Gorman, U.S. Spy Agencies Widen Recruiting, Baltimore Sun (April 5, 2007),

available at http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-04-05/news/0704050040_1_national-security-national-

intelligence-middle-east.

525

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

FINANCIAL REVIEW

revenue derived from licensing was approximately 30 million dollars, while the combined

revenue derived from royalties and rights was approximately one million dollars. Much of the

licensing revenue is derived from a few sources. For instance, in 2005, APA received over half

of its licensing revenue from EBSCO Information Services and Ovid Technologies, companies

that sell database access to other institutions and individuals.

The investigation reviewed spreadsheets compiling revenues derived from APA

publications for the years 2001 through 2006. The spreadsheets pertaining to the years 2001-

2003 indicated that some Security Agencies purchased access to APA materials, both directly

and through entities like EBSCO Information Services and Ovid Technologies. A summary of

such revenues is in the table below:

Year

Entity

Licensor

Revenue

2001

U.S. Army

EBSCO

$800

2001

Walter Reed Army Med. Ctr.

APA

$15,552

2001

U.S. Navy

Ovid

$13,000

2001

U.S. Navy Personnel R&D Ctr.

Silver Platter

$800

2001

U.S. Navy

Silver Platter

$13,000

2001

Keesler Air Force Base

Ovid

$2,000

2001

Travis Air Force Base Med. Ctr.

Ovid

$900

2001

U.S. Air Force

EBSCO

$4,000

2002

Womack Army Med. Ctr.

Ovid

$1,300

2002

U.S. Air Force Med. Ctr.

Ovid

$1,400

2002

Walter Reed Army Med. Ctr.

APA

$10,450

2002

U.S. Army Med. Command

Ovid

$32,470

2002

U.S. Army Research Institute

EBSCO

$1,200

2002

U.S. Navy

Silver Platter

$2,800

2002

Naval Submarine Med. Research Lab

EBSCO

$2,000

2002

Naval Medical Center - San Diego

Ovid

$1,400

2002

U.S. Air Force Virtual Library

Ovid

$25,415

2002

U.S. Air Force Academy

EBSCO

$4,800

2003

Darnall Army Comm. Hosp.

Ovid

$1,300

2003

Navy Personnel Command

Ovid

$2,000

2003

Navy Personnel R&D Ctr.

ProQuest

$2,000

2003

U.S. Naval Research Lab

APA

$3,500

2003

Naval Aerospace Medical Research Lab

APA

$6,000

2003

U.S. Air Force Virtual Library

Ovid

$29,900

2003

U.S. Air Force Academy

EBSCO

$5,000

Total

$182,987

Not every entry in these spreadsheets from entities like EBSCO or Ovid listed the end

customer, so these sums may not be comprehensive. In and after 2004, very few entries from

entities like EBSCO or Ovid listed the end customer, so it was not possible to identify which

entries pertained to purchases by Security Agencies for those years.

Grant and Contract Activity

APA seeks and administers grants made by a variety of entities, including federal

agencies, state and local governments, and non-governmental organizations. The investigation

focused on grants made by federal agencies in the years 2001-2006, and again distinguished

526

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

FINANCIAL REVIEW

between grants made by Security Agencies and those made by Other Federal Agencies. The

following table includes a summary of the grants awarded to APA by federal agencies in each of

these categories for the years 2001 - 2006.²⁵⁷⁶

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Security Agency Grant

$14,000

None

Awards

Other Federal Agency

$15,274,410

$18,524,863

$14,795,209

$18,050,323

$19,874,644

$20,127,409

Grant Awards

The sole grant awarded to APA from a Security Agency during this period was from the

Office of Naval Research, and amounted to $14,000 annually from 2001-2003. It was intended

to fund a meeting and series of white papers discussing and developing a research agenda to

study how to more effectively use technology to improve teaching and learning.

The investigation requested, and received, additional documentary information on several

entries in the lists of grants and contracts provided by APA to determine if they included either

disguised transfers from Security Agencies to APA via third parties such as foundations or other

federal agencies, or were disguised transfers of funds from Security Agencies through APA to

PENS Task Force members and observers, or APA officials who attended the Task Force

meetings. The investigation did not have access to records of the granting organizations; thus, it

was not possible make any conclusive determinations about whether funds awarded to APA in

grants from third parties were ultimately sourced from Security Agencies. But the documents

provided by APA showed no evidence that these agencies were the source of such funds, and

showed no evidence that individuals employed by APA was aware, or suspected, that such

agencies were behind any of the grants for which documents were requested.

For example, the investigation requested, and received, records from APA pertaining to a

grant titled “Decade of Behavior: Distinguished Lectures.” The “Decade of Behavior” was an

initiative undertaken by APA between 2000 and 2010 to focus more than 30 professional

societies representing the behavioral and social sciences on societal problems and national goals,

including promoting a healthier, safer, better educated, more prosperous and more democratic

nation. This grant was made by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, which was established in

1950 by James S. McDonnell.²⁵⁷⁷ McDonnell also founded the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation,

which later merged with the Douglas Aircraft Company to become McDonnell Douglas, a major

defense contractor, before merging into Boeing in 1997. The McDonnell Foundation awarded

APA $167,500 in the year 2000 under this grant, which it sent to APA in two wire transfers on

August 4 and 7 of that year. It made no further transfers to APA over the life of the grant. APA

²⁵⁷⁶ Grants awarded to the APA are typically not paid to the APA in a lump sum. Instead, after the grant

is awarded, the APA seeks reimbursement from the grantor for funds actually expended pursuant to the

terms of the grant after those expenditures are made. The figures in this table are derived from the total of

the grants awarded, not the total reimbursed to the APA.

²⁵⁷⁷ James S. McDonnell Foundation, available at https://www.jsmf.org.

527

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

FINANCIAL REVIEW

spent $165,280 of this grant during the following decade on honoraria and consulting expenses,

and it returned the balance of the grant—approximately $2,200—to the McDonnell Foundation

in 2010. The investigation reviewed records of funds expended by APA under this grant, and

found no instances in which APA used the funds to make a payment to any PENS Task Force

members and observers, or any APA officials who attended the Task Force meetings.

Rental Income

APA owns two buildings in Washington, DC: one at 750 First Street NE, and one at 10 G

Street NE. The building at 750 First Street NE was completed in 1992 and has 351,301 square

feet. The building at 10 G Street NE was completed in 1997, and has 253,515 square feet.

The investigation reviewed tenant lists for both buildings for the years 2001-2007 to

determine if APA received improper benefits through the mechanism of tenant rental payments

or otherwise. Throughout this period, no Security Agency rented space in either building. The

substantial majority of tenants in both buildings in this period had no direct connection to the

federal government. The following table displays information about the few federally-linked

organizations that rented space in either building.

Approximate

Organization Name

Lease Start

Lease End

Building

Square Footage

Amtrak

Prior to 2001

After 2007

85,000

10 G Street NE

Legal Services

Prior to 2001

2003

40,000-50,000

750 First Street NE

Corporation

Nat’l Academy of

Sciences Travel

2001

2004

4,000

10 G Street NE

Office

U.S. Mint

2001

2002

30,000

10 G Street NE

Other Revenue

APA’s consolidated financial statements characterize revenues not falling into one of the

other categories as “Other Revenue.” The investigation reviewed spreadsheets derived from

APA general ledger for “Other Revenue” for the years 2001 through 2006. Most of the

transactions listed in these spreadsheets are tied to individual names, are for small amounts such

as $15.00, and are related to such matters as late fee charges. However, the investigation

identified a set of transactions described as “Misc Special” associated with deposits ranging from

approximately $1,000 to $65,000, and asked APA for further information about each of these.

Each of these transactions was associated with one of several “affiliate programs” for APA

members. These programs involve arrangements with such companies as rental car agencies and

credit card providers, and provide discounts to APA members and revenue to APA when APA

members take part in them. The investigation did not identify any transactions from the “other

revenue” spreadsheets that were related to any Security Agency.

**********************************************

528

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

GLOSSARY

ApA

American Psychiatric Association

APA

American Psychological Association

Army Regulation 190-8, a detailed multi-service policy

AR 190-8

regarding Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel,

Civilian Internees and Other Detainees.

A report created by the National Commission for the

Belmont Report

Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral

Research.

Behavioral Science Consultation Team; A team of

psychologists, psychiatrists, and mental health specialists who

BSCT

provided behavioral science consultation in support of

interrogation.

CIA

Central Intelligence Agency

Counter Intelligence Field Activity; A DoD agency, existing

CIFA

from 2002-2008, designed to manage and synchronize

Defense counterintelligence activities.

Center for Interdisciplinary Policy, Education and Research

on Terrorism; A collaborative network of academics, national

security professionals, journalists, and business leaders,

CIPERT

founded by Philip Zimbardo and James Breckenridge,

committed to the scientific understanding of the causes and

consequences of terrorism.

Criminal Investigation Task Force; A DoD task force with

detachments in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq, and

CITF

Afghanistan, charged with investigating and building criminal

cases against accused terrorists.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Highest-ranking

military officer in the U.S. Armed Forces and principal

CJCS

military advisor to the President, National Security Council,

and Secretary of Defense.

Combined Joint Task Force-7; An interim military formation

CJTF-7

that directed the U.S. effort in Iraq between June 2003 and

May 2004.

Coalition for National Security Research; A coalition of

CNSR

industry, research universities, and associations united by a

commitment to defense science and technology.

COLI

APA Committee on Legal Issues

A federal regulation adopted by more than a dozen agencies,

requiring informed consent, review board approval, and other

Common Rule

record keeping procedures for the protection of human

subjects in research.

529

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

GLOSSARY

Counterterrorism Center; A division of the CIA designed to

CTC

collect intelligence on global terrorist organizations.

DHS

Department of Homeland Security

DoD

Department of Defense

ECTF

Ethics Code Task Force

Enhanced interrogation techniques - Physically and

psychologically harsh interrogation methods that were

EITs

authorized by the U.S. government for use against detainees

held in the war on terror.

A term used by the Bush Administration to refer to a person

who, either lawfully or unlawfully, directly engaged in

Enemy combatant

hostilities for an enemy state or non-state actor in an armed

conflict.

FBI

Federal Bureau of Investigation

The Human Resources Research Organization; An

organization established to conduct behavioral science

HumRRO

research and to develop training methodologies and

applications for the U.S. Army.

Intelligence Community; The seventeen separate government

organizations that conduct intelligence activities, including

the CIA, DHS, FBI, NSA, and military intelligence services.

International Committee of the Red Cross; An independent

organization dedicated to protecting and enforcing

ICRC

international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions

of 1949.

Intelligence Science Board; An advisory board, chartered in

2002 and disbanded in 2010, designed to advise the Director

ISB

of National Intelligence on emerging scientific and technical

issues/applications.

Intelligence Technology Innovation Center; A research

ITIC

division of the CIA.

Joint Personnel Recovery Agency; A DoD agency that

prepares for and executes the recovery and reintegration of

JPRA

isolated personnel, including prisoners of war and individuals

identified as missing in action.

A psychological theory developed by Martin Seligman, which

holds that an organism forced to endure aversive, painful or

Learned Helplessness

otherwise unpleasant stimuli, will become unable or unwilling

to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if

they are escapable.

530

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

GLOSSARY

A consulting company, founded in 2005 by psychologists

Mitchell Jessen &

James Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen, to contract with the

Associates

CIA to develop its interrogation program.

National Academies of Science; A non-profit private

organization charged with providing independent, objective

NAS

advice to the nation on matters related to science and

technology.

National Center on Disaster Psychology and Terrorism; A

collaborative effort between Pacific Graduate College and

NCDPT

Stanford University to train psychology doctoral students to

help victims of catastrophic events.

Naval Criminal Investigative Service; A branch of the U.S.

Navy charged with investigating and defeating criminal,

NCIS

terrorist, and foreign intelligence threats to the U.S. Navy and

Marine Corps.

National Institute of Justice; A research, development, and

evaluation agency within the U.S. Department of Justice

NIJ

focused on advancing technology for criminal justice

applications, including law enforcement, forensics,

criminology, and related social science research.

National Security Council; The President's principal forum for

NSC

considering national security and foreign policy matters with

his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials.

A set of ethical principles for human experimentation set as a

Nuremberg Code

result of the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II.

OAD

Operational Assessment Division, a division of the CIA.

Office of Legal Counsel; A division of the Department of

OLC

Justice that provides authoritative legal advice to the President

and Executive branch agencies.

OMS

Office of Medical Services, a division within the CIA.

Office of Science & Technology Policy; A Congressionally-

created office within the White House with a mandate to

OSTP

advise the President and Executive Office on the effects of

science and technology on domestic and international affairs.

Office of Technical Services; A division of the CIA dedicated

OTS

to developing cutting-edge technology for use by agency

officers in the field.

Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National

Security; A 2005 task force charged with identifying whether

PENS Task Force

the then-current ethics code adequately addressed the ethical

dimensions of psychologists' involvement in national security-

related activities.

531

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

GLOSSARY

Providing Psychological Support for Interrogations, draft

PPSI

document authored by Morgan Banks and Debra DunivI.n

Professional Standards Advisory Committee (CIA); also

PSAC

referenced as Advisory Committee.

A non-partisan, non-profit institution dedicated to improving

RAND Corporation

policy and decision-making through research and analysis.

Senate Armed Services Committee; A standing committee

SASC

with jurisdiction over research and development of weapons

systems, defense policy, and the military.

Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape; A military training

program run by the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency

SERE

designed to prepare personnel to survive the elements, evade

capture, resist torture and interrogation, and live up to the

U.S. military code of conduct.

Safe, Legal, Ethical, and Effective; A phrase used by DoD

and the APA PENS report to describe the interrogation

SLEE

conditions that would be insured by the involvement of

military psychologists.

Special Operations Command; The unified command for the

SOCOM

worldwide use of Special Operations elements of the Army,

Navy, and Air Force.

Standard Operating Procedures; A set of instructions used in

SOP

the military to define a prescribed and accepted process

established for completing a task.

Also known as Joint Special Operations Command, this

Special Mission Unit Task

military command center is responsible for covert missions

Force

including counter-terrorism, strike operations, reconnaissance,

and special intelligence.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; A standing

SSCI

committee responsible for overseeing federal intelligence

activities.

Task Force on Promoting

A 2002 APA task force selected to examine methods to

Resilience in Response to

bolster public resilience and prepare for stress the community

Terrorism

might experience during a terrorist attack or disaster.

Task Force on the

A 2003 APA task force selected to examine the psychological

Psychological Effects of

effects of terrorism prevention efforts and explore alternative

Efforts to Prevent Terrorism

programs that will reduce terrorism.

A combatant who directly engages in armed conflict in

Unlawful combatant

violation of the laws of war.

A March 25, 2002 DoD directive updating policies in regards

Wolfowitz Directive

to the Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical

Standards in DoD-Supported Research.

532

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

ATTACHMENT A

(INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

APA CURRENT AND FORMER MANAGEMENT AND STAFF

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

Chief Executive Officer & Executive Vice President (2003 -

Anderson, Norman

present)

Behnke, Stephen

Ethics Office, Director (11/2000 - present)

Brasfield, Stephanie

Ethics Office, Ethics Investigative Officer (1995 - present)

Breckler, Steven

Science Directorate, Executive Director (2004 - 14)

Science Directorate, Associate Executive Director (1999 -

2005)

Office of International Affairs, Science Director (2005 -

Bullock, Merry

present)

Carliner, Deborah

Ethics Office, Ethics Investigative Officer (2000 - 04)

Deputy General Counsel (2001 - 07)

Ethics Office, Deputy Director / Director of Adjudication (2007

Childress-Beatty, Lindsay

- present)

Ethics Office, Board and Investigative Officer (2003 - present)

Dixon, Patricia

Ethics Investigator (1996 - 2003)

Public and Member Communications, Executive Director (2001

Farberman, Rhea

- present)

Senior Policy Advisor (2006 - present)

Public Interest Policy, Associate Executive Director/APA

10.

Garrison, Ellen

Congressional Fellowship Program, Co-Director (1998 - 2006)

General Counsel (2001- present), Deputy General Counsel

11.

Gilfoyle, Nathalie

(1996 - 2001)

Deputy Chief Executive Officer (1990 - present)

12.

Honaker, Michael

Ethics Office, Acting Director (04/2000 - 10/2000)

13.

Jones, Stanley

Ethics Office, Director (1990 - 99)

Public Interest Directorate, Executive Director (2005 - present)

14.

Keita, Gwendolyn

Women’s Programs Office, Director (1988 - 2005)

Science Directorate, Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs

15.

Kelly, Heather

Officer (1998 - present)

Science Directorate, Senior Legislative and Federal Affairs

16.

McIntyre, Jeffrey

Officer (1996 - 2008)

17.

Mihaly Black, Martha

Senior Ethics Investigator (1998 - 2006)

Science Directorate, Associate Executive Director of Science

Policy (2000 - present)

18.

Mumford, Geoffrey

Legislative and Federal Affairs Officer (1997 - 2000)

Practice Directorate, Executive Director (1993 - 2008)

19.

Newman, Russ

PENS Task Force Observer

533

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

Practice Directorate, Executive Director (2008 - present)

Board Member (2001 - 03)

20.

Nordal, Katherine

Board Liaison to Ethics Office & Committee on Legal Issues

Staff Liaison to Council of Representatives & Board of

21.

O’Brien, Maureen

Directors (1995 - 2014)

Science Directorate, Director of Research Ethics Office (2002 -

22.

Panicker, Sangeeta

present)

23.

Pickren, Wade

Historian and Archivist (1998 - 2006)

24.

Salzinger, Kurt

Science Directorate, Executive Director (2001 - 03)

Governance Affairs Division, Executive Director (1989 - 2009)

25.

Strassburger-Fox, Judy

Staff Liaison to Board of Directors (2000 - 09)

26.

Turner, Archie

Chief Financial Officer (2008 - present)

Practice Directorate, Executive Director (1986 - 1993)

27.

Welch, Bryant

Coalition for Ethical Psychology Member

II.

ETHICS CODE TASK FORCE (ECTF) MEMBERS AND OBSERVERS

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

28.

Brown, Laura

ECTF Member (1997 - 99)

ECTF Observer

Council of Representatives (2014 - present)

29.

Campbell, Linda

Board Member (2014 - present)

ECTF Observer, CAPP

30.

Carter, Jean

Board Member (2009 - 11)

31.

Cooper, Stewart

ECTF Observer, Division 13

ECTF Member (1997 - 2002)

32.

Daniel, Jessica Henderson

Board Member (2005 - 07)

33.

El-Ghoroury, Nabil

ECTF Observer, APAGS (1999 - 2002)

Ethics Code Revision Coordinator (1998 - 2001)

34.

Felder, Deborah

Project Associate (1990 - present)

35.

Fisher, Celia

ECTF Chair (1997 - 2002)

36.

Grill, Dennis

ECTF Member (2000 - 02)

ECTF Observer, Division 14

37.

Knapp, Deirdre

Council Member, Division 14 (2006 - 09; 2015 - present)

38.

Knapp, Samuel

ECTF Member (1999 - 2002)

39.

Naugle, Richard

ECTF Observer, Division 40

ECTF Member (1997 - 2002)

40.

Ramos-Grenier, Julia

Committee on Legal Issues (2003 - 05), Chair (2005)

41.

Slife, Brent

ECTF Observer, Division 24

ECTF Observer

42.

Sparta, Steven

Ethics Committee (2000 - 02), Chair (2002)

534

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

ECTF Observer, Division 2

43.

Swenson, Elizabeth

Ethics Committee (1997 - 99)

ECTF Member (1997 - 2002)

President (2011)

44.

Vasquez, Melba

Board Member (2007 - 12)

ECTF Observer, Division 42

Council of Representatives, Division 46 (2005 - 10)

45.

Walker, Lenore

Council of Representatives, Division 42 (2013 - 15)

46.

Williams, Marty

ECTF Observer, Division 42

III.

APA PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL ETHICS AND

NATIONAL SECURITY (PENS) MEMBERS AND OBSERVERS

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

PENS Task Force, Board Liaison

President (2015)

47.

Anton, Barry

Board Member (2003 - 05, 2007 - 12, 2014 - present)

48.

Arrigo, Jean Maria

PENS Task Force Member

Former Chief Army Operational Psychologist, U.S. Army

49.

Banks, Morgan

Special Operations Command

PENS Task Force Observer

Former APA Visiting Senior Scientist

Former Assistant Director, Office of Science and Technology

50.

Brandon, Susan

Policy, Executive Office of the President

PENS Task Force Member

Former consultant, Directorate for Behavioral Sciences. CIFA,

Department of Defense

51.

Fein, Robert A.

Member, Intelligence Science Board

PENS Task Force Member

Former Chief Psychologist, Naval Criminal Investigative

52.

Gelles, Michael G.

Service, Department of Defense

PENS Task Force Member

Division 19 President (2010)

Former Chief Psychologist, Joint Task Force - Guantanamo,

Joint Intelligence Group

Former Director, Behavioral Science Unit, Joint Interrogation

and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib

Former Chief of Psychology, Walter Reed Army Medical

53.

James, Larry C.

Center

535

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

PENS Task Force, Board Liaison

President (2006)

Treasurer (1998 - 2004)

Board Member (1998 - 2007)

Finance Committee, Chair (1998 - 2004)

54.

Koocher, Gerald

ECTF Member, Board Liaison (1997 - 2002)

PENS Task Force Member

Former Clinical Psychologist, SERE School, U.S. Navy

Former military psychologist at Bagram Air Base in

55.

Lefever, Bryce E.

Afghanistan, U.S. Navy

PENS Task Force Chair

56.

Moorehead-Slaughter, Olivia

Ethics Committee Chair (2006)

PENS Task Force Member

Former Chief Operational Psychologist for the CIA’s

Counterterrorist Center (2001 - 03)

Former Director of Behavioral Science, CIFA, Department of

57.

Shumate, R. Scott

Defense

58.

Thomas, Nina K.

PENS Task Force Member

59.

Wessells, Michael G.

PENS Task Force Member

IV. OTHER APA GOVERNANCE

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

President (1997)

Board Member (1996 - 98)

Council of Representatives, Division 39 (2012 - 14)

60.

Abeles, Norman

Ethics Committee (2005 - 07)

President (2009)

Board Member (2008 - 10)

61.

Bray, James

Committee on Legal Issues, Board Liaison

Treasurer (2008 - 10)

Board Member (2003 - 05, 2008 - 10)

62.

Craig, Paul

Committee on Legal Issues, Board Liaison

President (2000)

63.

DeLeon, Patrick

Board Member (1999 - 2001)

64.

DeMaio, Thomas

Board Member (2004 - 06)

65.

Fox, Ronald

President (1994)

President (2010)

Treasurer (2005 - 07)

Board Member (2003 - 07, 2009 - 11)

66.

Goodheart, Carol

Finance Committee, Member (1999 - 2001), Chair (2005 - 07)

536

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

President (2004)

67.

Halpern, Diane

Board Member (2003 - 05)

President (2012)

68.

Johnson, Suzanne Bennett

Board Member (2008 - 13)

President (2008)

69.

Kazdin, Alan

Board Member (2007 - 09)

Chair, Task Force on Psychological Effects of Efforts to

70.

Kimmel, Paul

Prevent Terrorism (2004 - 05)

Member, Task Force to Reconcile APA Policies Related to

Psychologists Work in National Security Settings (2011 -

13)

71.

Levitt, Julie

Division 48 leadership (2003-2011)

President (2005)

Recording Secretary (1998 - 2003)

Board Member (1998 - 2006)

72.

Levant, Ronald

Council of Representatives (2014 - 16)

73.

Manne, Sharon

Council of Representatives, Division 38 (2007)

President (1989)

74.

Matarazzo, Joseph

Board Member (1988 - 90)

75.

Nightingale, Edmund

Council of Representatives, Division 18 (1999 - 2004)

Recording Secretary (2004 - 06)

Board Member (1999 - 2002, 2004 - 06)

76.

Paige, Ruth Ullman

Committee on Legal Issues, Board Liaison

77.

Rozenksy, Ronald

Board Member (2005 - 07)

President (1998)

78.

Seligman, Martin

Board Member (1997 - 99)

79.

Shullman, Sandra

Board Member (2004 - 06)

President (2003)

80.

Sternberg, Robert

Board Member (2002 - 04)

Board Member (2013 - 15)

81.

Strickland, William

CEO, HUMRRO (2008 - present)

Chair, Task Force to Reconcile APA Policies Related to

Psychologists' Work in National Security Settings (2011 -

13)

82.

Woolf, Linda

Division 48 leadership (2001 - 2013)

President (2002)

83.

Zimbardo, Philip

Board Member (2001 - 03)

537

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

V. APA ETHICS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

84.

Bow, James

Ethics Committee (2011 - 13), Chair (2013)

85.

Callahan, Lisa

Ethics Committee, Public Member (1999 - 2001)

Board Member (2008 - 10)

86.

Cerbone, Armand

Ethics Committee (2012 - 14), Chair (2014)

87.

Deutsch, Robin

Ethics Committee (2005 - 07), Chair (2007)

88.

Forrest, Linda M.

Ethics Committee (2009 - 11), Chair (2011)

89.

Fouad, Nadya

Ethics Committee (2010 - 12), Chair (2012)

Ethics Committee (1998 - 2001), Chair (2000 - 01)

90.

Kinscherff, Robert

Committee on Legal Issues (2002 - 04), Chair (2004)

91.

Pope, Ken

Ethics Committee, Chair (1980s)

92.

Shuster, Evelyne

Ethics Committee (2002 - 03)

93.

Smith, Steve R.

Ethics Committee, Public Member (1994 - 96)

VI. OTHER GOVERNMENT / MILITARY WITNESSES

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

94.

Berenson, Bradford

Former Associate Counsel to the President

95.

Bhatt, Sujeeta

Former APA Summer Fellow, Department of Defense

96.

Bryson, Jennifer

Former interrogator, Defense Intelligence Agency

Former Chief Psychology Consultant, U.S. Army Office of the

97.

Crow, Bruce

Surgeon General, Department of Defense

Former APA Science Policy Fellow, CIA (2003 - 04)

Former APA Congressional Fellow, Senate Judiciary

98.

Demaine, Linda

Committee (2003 - 04)

Former Behavioral Science Consultation Team Psychologist,

Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, U.S. Army

Former Chief of Psychology, Walter Reed Army Medical

99.

Dunivin, Debra

Center

Former Chief of Research and Analysis Branch, Operational

100.

Hubbard, Kirk

Assessment Division, CIA

Former Chief of Assessment Branch, Operational Assessment

Division, CIA

Former head of Center for National Security Psychology at

101.

Kennedy, Kirk

CIFA, Department of Defense

102.

Kiley, Kevin

Former U.S. Army Surgeon General

103.

Kiriakou, John

Former CIA Analyst

Former Interrogator and Director of Air Force Combat

104.

Kleinman, Steven

Interrogation Course

538

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

Former Executive Officer to the Assistant Secretary of Defense

105.

Kurmel, Thomas

for Health Affairs, Department of Defense (2004 - 09)

106.

Lane, Doug

Former military psychologist at Guantanamo Bay

Former CIA Contractor

107.

Mitchell, James

Co-founder of Mitchell Jessen & Associates

108.

Mora, Alberto

Former General Counsel, U.S. Navy

Former Medical Intelligence Officer, CIA

Yale University School of Medicine, Associate Clinical

Professor of

109.

Morgan, Andy

Psychiatry & Research Affiliate, History of Medicine

Former U.S. Army counter-intelligence officer and mental

110.

Rockwood, Lawrence

health specialist

111.

Sammons, Morgan

Retired Captain, U.S. Navy

112.

Shimkus, Albert

Former Commander, U.S. Naval Hospital, Guantanamo Bay

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health

113.

Smith, Jack

Services Policy and Oversight, Department of Defense

Army Clinical Psychologist

114.

Williams, Tom

Division 19 President

VII. AUTHORS, ACTIVISTS, SCHOLARS, AND OTHER WITNESSES

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

115.

Aalbers, Dan

Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Member

Professor of Medicine and Associate Dean, University of California

Riverside

116.

Allen, Scott

Medical Advisor to Physicians for Human Rights

117.

Amada, Jerry

Retired psychotherapist

Clinical Psychologist

118.

Amador, Xavier

Founder, LEAP Institute

Clinical Psychologist

119.

Aron, Adrianne

Committee for Health Rights in Central America, Member

120.

Barnes, Keith

Retired psychologist

Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of

121.

Bloche, Gregg

Public Health

Clinical Psychologist

Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

122.

Bond, Trudy

Complainant in the Mitchell matter

Clinical Psychologist

123.

Boulanger, Ghislaine

Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Member

Documentarian (“Doctors of the Dark Side”)

124.

Davis, Martha

Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Member

539

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

125.

Eidelson, Roy

Psychologists for Social Responsibility, past President

Clinical Psychologist

126.

Fallenbaum, Ruth

Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Member

127.

Fields, Rona

Clinical Psychologist

Fleuhr-Lobban,

Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Rhode Island College

128.

Carolyn

Naval War College, Lecturer

Psychologist

129.

Gadberry, Sharon

Complainant in the Mitchell matter

President, International Association of Applied Psychology

Chair, Ad Hoc Joint Committee for the Development of a Universal

130.

Gauthier, Janel

Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists

131.

Huizenga, Joel

Psychologist

132.

Klein, George

Consultant to Behavioral Science Unit at FBI

133.

LaMuth, John

Psychologist

134.

Lauritzen, Paul

Professor, John Carroll University

135.

Maierle, John Paul

Psychologist

Community Psychologist and Assistant Professor, National Louis

University

Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

136.

Olson, Brad

Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Member

Human Rights Investigator

Director of the Signal Program Human Security and Technology at the

Harvard Humanitarian Initiativ, Harvard University, T.I. Chan School

137.

Raymond, Nathaniel

of Public Health,

Clinical Psychologist

138.

Reisner, Steven

Coalition for Ethical Psychology

Professor in the History of Ideas and Professor of Women’s and Gender

139.

Reverby, Susan

Studies, Wellesley College

140.

Risen, James

Author and reporter, New York Times

Director, Program on Human Rights, Health and Conflict, Center for

Public Health and Human Rights, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg

141.

Rubenstein, Len

School of Public Health

Philosophy Professor, Georgetown University,

142.

Sherman, Nancy

Former Distinguished Chair of Ethics, U.S. Naval Academy

Clinical Psychologist

143.

Soldz, Stephen

Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

144.

Stefanick, Michelle

Former Foreign Policy Advisor, U.S. Marine Forces

Division 39 President

145.

Summers, Frank

Psychologists for an Ethical APA, Member

University of Oslo, Associate Professor

146.

Sveeass, Nora

Former member of the U.N. Committee on Torture

540

INDEPENDENT REVIEW REPORT TO APA

ATTACHMENT A (INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED OR ATTEMPTED)

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

147.

Tumlin, Timothy

Clinical Psychologist

148.

Zicht, Stephan

Clinical Psychologist

VIII.

INDIVIDUALS WHO DECLINED TO SPEAK WITH US

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

Former Chief Financial Officer of Mitchell Jessen & Associates

149.

Ayers, David

President of Tate, Inc.

150.

Band, Stephen

Former Chief of Behavioral Science Unit, FBI

Former Chief Executive Officer, APA Insurance Trust (has not

151.

Bennett, Bruce

yet responded to written questions)

Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,

Department of Justice

152.

Goldsmith, Jack

Special Counsel at Department of Defense

PENS Task Force Observer

CIA Contractor

Professor, George Washington University, Department of

153.

Gravitz, Melvin

Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences

154.

Haynes, James

Former General Counsel, Department of Defense

155.

Muller, Scott

Former General Counsel, CIA

156.

Nathan, Peter

ECTF Member (1997 - 2002)

157.

Overmier, J. Bruce

Board Member (1999 - 2004)

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs,

158.

Winkenwerder, William

Department of Defense

Former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General at Office of

159.

Yoo, John

Legal Counsel, Department of Justice

IX. INDIVIDUALS WHO DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR REQUESTS

Witness

Title / Key Role(s)

Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,

Department of Justice

Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of

160.

Bradbury, Steven

Justice

Former Deputy Associate Director for Science at the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the

161.

Gabriel, Cliff

President

162.

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann

Board of Scientific Affairs (2000 - 02), Chair (2001)

541

REPORT TO THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (2015) - page 6