As an APS member I wonder what proportion of society members took part in the vote on the resolution on torture. It's news to me.
And how can a psychologst have "complete professional independence" as the resolution promises if he/she is going to be blacklisted ethically by fellow members for taking or stating a belief?

This article is highly misleading to the point of libel.

I attended the Australian Psychological Society meeting to give a keynote address on psychological ethics, and joined the panel on detention and interrogation later. The discussion focused both on US practices and practices at Australian immigration detention centers.

I absolutely NEVER discussed or supported any use of homophobia as an interrogation strategy. Such as strategy would violate the APA ethical standards.

Professor Koocher is correct in his posting. With sincerest apologies to him for any distress caused by our modest writing skills, we agree that a reader might interpret the two sentences as indicating he endorsed or spoke about the use of homophobia at the conference in Brisbane. Our intention was not to suggest that he supported such practices. In our opinion, he best articulated his position at The Public Forum where he made it clear to all that he was a man of integrity and did not endorse the use of many forms of coercion, much less torture. Our example was provided from the well publicised photos of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Arthur Veno
Julie van den Eynde

We write to correct the account posted by Drs Veno and van den Eynde of Professor Gerald Koocher’s participation at the 42nd Australian Psychological Society Conference, 2007.

That account is erroneous and misleading.

First, it states that “Professor Koocher had convened a panel of United States psychologists to develop their policy.” This appears to be a reference to the American Psychological Association’s PENS Task Force, which was chaired by Dr Olivia Moorehouse-Slaughter and concluded its work prior to Professor Koocher’s inauguration as APA President.

Second, it states that Professor Koocher made the following statement, "We are not going to be subjected to rulings by foreign courts." Professor Koocher, when commenting on international law in relation to the APA’s Code of Conduct, pointed out that the APA in formulating its Code of Conduct was bound by US law, and not in a position to define, interpret, or apply international law. Their insinuation here is regrettable.

Third, it states that Professor Koocher informed Australian psychologists that APA psychologists' roles included advising interrogators to use "culturally appropriate" interrogation techniques. In neither his keynote address nor the Public Forum did Professor Koocher advocate for, condone or normalise APA psychologists’ use of culture-specific forms of interrogation. We note that Dr Veno has subsequently amended this aspect of their account.

Fourth, it subsequently states that APA advisors suggested using homophobia as an interrogation technique and implies that Professor Koocher condoned using such techniques. At no time did Professor Koocher elaborate on, advocate for, condone or normalise APA psychologists’ use of such practices. We note that Dr Veno has amended this aspect of their account.

Finally, it states that the APS resolution should have included two additional clauses which it lists. It is not unreasonable to assume by implication that conference delegates or APS Directors rejected the clauses. The fact is that the clauses in question were never put to the conference.

Professor Gerard Fogarty FAPS
Chair, 42nd Annual Australian Psychological Society Conference
University of Southern Queensland

Emeritus Professor Graham Davidson FAPS
Chair, APS Conference Public Forum
University of the Sunshine Coast

For those of us who didn't go to the conference, how can we comment now?

Should this article be re-written in a revised context to be more clear as to what the author is saying, what the rationale is and clearly defining the incidents in Guantanamo as different to what happened in Australia. I can't imagine anyone can really comment without clarification.