Abstract
This paper discusses the amendments made to the 2002 American Psychological Association Ethics Code as a result of the criticisms thrown at the Bush administration for employing enhanced interrogation techniques, which were in violation of human rights. This paper specifically discusses the changes in the verbiage of ethical standards 1.02 and 1.03 and how these changes contribute to a more socially progressive society.
Changes were made to the APA Ethics Code of 2002 in order to protect human rights and to ensure that the APA Ethics Code cannot be used as justification for human rights violations.
In particular, these changes were made with regards to the Nuremberg defense, which is a plea that indicates that a defendant is not guilty if he or she committed a crime or violation because he or she was following orders (Ruschmann & Marzilli, 2009). This defense was first used by the German soldiers who were charged with war crimes at the Nuremberg Trial after World War II (Ruschmann & Marzilli, 2009). In this trial, the soldiers asserted that they were just following orders; and thus, were not guilty of the crimes.
This same defense was used by the senior officials – particularly by the CIA agents and the lawyers in the US Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel -- of the Bush administration when they implemented enhanced interrogation techniques, which involved the use of waterboarding and various forms of torture in the interrogation of the high level terrorists who were captured at the time (Ferrara, Armor, Klukowski & Ramirez, n.d.). These resulted in criticisms from the public and from TV commentators who called for the prosecution of the said officials. These critics alleged that the acts of torture were war crimes and were illegal (Ferrara et al, n.d.). Although such interrogation techniques were abolished during the Obama regime, President Obama still did not investigate and prosecute the CIA agents who were involved in the said tortures as the said agents were merely obeying orders, which were legally approved by the senior Bush officials (Ferrara et al., n.d.).
This prompted the American Psychological Association (APA) to amend its Code of Ethics in 2010. In particular, the new verbiage that was added to the Code of Ethics advocated for human rights protection. With the new verbiage, the APA indicated that it did not tolerate the use of law, regulations, or legal authority, and organizational demands as justification for violations of human rights, which included acts of torture (American Psychological Association, 2010a).
More specifically, the ethical standards 1.02 and 1.03 of the Ethics Code were amended in 2010 (American Psychological Association, 2010a). A stark contrast between the 2002 and 2010 versions of the APA Code of Ethics is that the current version explicitly indicates that the action taken should be based on the nature of the conflict and that reasonable steps be taken to resolve a conflict. This implies that the person resolving the conflict should use their own discretion and their own sense of judgment when making a decision about the conflict. This also implies that they should not blindly follow rules and orders but that the action they take be in accordance to the general principles and ethical standards indicated by the Code of Ethics. Most importantly, the amended Ethics Code stresses that under no condition should human rights be violated.
Whereas the 2002 version of the Ethics Code advocated reverting to the law as a last resort in the resolution of conflicts, the amended Ethics Code no longer accords such authority or power to the law. In the amended Ethics, nothing – not even the law – can be used as justification for violating human rights. Stated in another way, the law served as the exception to the rule in the 2002 Ethics Code with regards to the violation of human rights. However, with the current Ethics Code, there is no more exception to the rule. Under the current Ethics Code, the violation of human rights is not permissible for any reason or under any circumstance.
In this regard, it can be considered that the current version of the Ethics Code reflects a socially improving society in that it is more reflective of the thinking and feeling nature of humans, which would be contrary to the barbaric ways of uncivilized man where crude forms of punishment were employed. We have seen the trend of punishments becoming more humane throughout history – from the beheadings and burnings at the stake during the medieval times to the implementation of the lethal injection in our modern times. With regards to the enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration, research has shown that these techniques were not effective and that rapport building, which is a more humane approach, would be more effective in achieving the same objectives that the enhanced interrogation techniques were intended to achieve (Think Progress, n.d.; Schneiderman, 2012).
Based on this perspective, the amendments to the Ethics Code can be considered another step forward towards a more humane and civilized society where human rights are granted equally to all and where inappropriate actions are corrected not by a new set of inappropriate actions but by actions that are more moral and ethical and that will have more effective and corrective outcomes. Also, these changes give more accountability and responsibility to individual persons with regards to the decisions they make and the actions they take, as opposed to the individuals of the past who resembled machines or robots that were incapable of thinking for themselves and that had no other recourse but to follow orders regardless of their effects and implications. With these amendments to the Ethics Code, there is a newfound hope for a safer and more harmonious society where everyone looks out for each other.
References
American Psychological Association. (2002). APA ethics code 2002. Retrieved from
http://www2.fapse.ulg.ac.be/documents/code2002.pdf.American Psychological Association. (2010, February 24). American Psychological Association
amends ethics code to address potential conflicts among professional ethics, legal
authority, and organizational demands. APA News and Events. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/02/ethics-code.aspx.
Ferrara P., Armor, J., Klukowski, K. and Ramirez, C. (n.d.). Interrogation memos: Shall we be
clueless on terrorism? American Civil Rights Union. Retrieved from
http://theacru.org/pdfs/TheInterrogationMemos.pdf.
Ruschmann, P. & Marzilli, A. (2009). The war on terror. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.
Schneiderman, R.M. (2012, May 25). New research suggests enhanced interrogation not
effective . The Daily BEAST. Retrieved from
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/25/new-research-suggests-enhanced-
interrogation-not-effective.html.
Think Progress. (n.d.). Why Bush’s ‘enhanced interrogation’ program failed. Retrieved from
http://thinkprogress.org/why-enhanced-interrogation-failed/.
