COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES 
RECORD PAGE   DESCRIPTION
 00001 00001
 00002 00002	On the American Psychological Association statement on POWs
 00014 ENDMK
⊗;
On the American Psychological Association statement on POWs

	The American Psychological Association has raised  the  issue
of  whether  the  Administration  used  the  return  of  the POWs for
political purposes in a way  that  might  be  "detrimental  to  their
psychological well-being".

	This  issue  might well be examined, but their statement also
raises  some  other  issues,  specifically   whether   the   American
Psychological  Association  has  abused  its position as a scientific
organization to advance political ideas held by its members.

	Suppose the  facts  are  as  follows:  (This  is  my  present
opinion, but my information is sketchy)

	1.   During   World  War  II  and  since,  the  psychological
profession has regarded returned prisoners as  needing  psychological
examination  and  often  treatment.   (Stewart  Alsop  who  was taken
prisoner in World War II and subjected  to  this  treatment  when  he
returned,   wrote  a  column  before  the  return  of  the  prisoners
recounting his experience being treated.  He regarded it as degrading
and likely to make the treatee dependent if it did anything.)

	2.   The   doctrine   dominated  the  planning  of  Operation
Homecoming and some parts of the plan were carried out: a very simple
welcome  (televised  to  be  sure)  and a decompression period in the
Philippines before return to the U.S.

	3. The psychological and political condition of the prisoners
induced a change of plan.  Instead of being regarded as patients, the
prisoners were regarded as heroes and got only such treatment as they
were  willing  to  accept.   No  bland diets, no psychologists and an
earlier return to the U.S. than planned.  Once in the U.S. they  were
allowed to meet the press if they wanted to.  It turned out that many
of them, especially the senior officers who were the leaders  in  the
prisons,  had  plenty  to  say and wanted to meet the press early and
often.

	4. What almost all of them had to say was a great comfort  to
President Nixon, the Armed Forces, and to Nixon supporters generally.
Naturally,  opponents  of   the   Administration   found   themselves
speculating whether it was a put up job.

	5.  In  order  to believe it was a put up job, it seems to me
you have to believe the following:

		a. When the three prisoners who were  released  early
and  came  to  America  in the company of the anti-war activists, the
fact that they got off the airplane at Kennedy wearing their uniforms
and  medals was either an accident or the result of government agents
getting to them on the airplane.

		b. When Captain Jeremiah Denton, the  first  man  off
the  first  airplane, specifically thanked the Commander-in-Chief, he
did this at the instigation of the American officers on the airplane.
You must believe he was lying when he denied it.

		c. When one of the prisoners claimed that he made the
flag saying "God bless America and Nixon" in the  Hanoi  Hilton,  you
must believe he was lying.

		d.  When the POWs said they didn't want psychological
treatment, but wanted to resumen normal (military for most  of  them)
lives as soon as possible, you must believe they were induced to lie,
or were not entitled to their choice in the  matter.   Perhaps  their
desire  to  meet  the  press  must be regarded as a symptom of mental
illness, and they should be hospitalized until they are cured of it.

	All this  is  irrelevant  to  the  question  of  whether  the
majority  of  the  POWs  are  right in their attitude toward the war,
President Nixon, the role of the anti-war activists, the  actions  of
Jane  Fonda,  Ramsey Clark and Cora Weiss in Hanoi, and the policy of
the government.  It is perfectly reasonable to say that prisoners out
of  touch  with  American  political  life  are not to be regarded as
political experts even though they are entitled  to  their  opinions,
and  the  Press  is entitled and obliged to satisfy the strong public
interest in what these opinions may be.  They ought, however,  to  be
regarded  as  experts  in  how the North Vietnamese treated prisoners
unless someone has some strong evidence that they are not telling the
truth.

	Here  is  a quote from a statement by Dr. H. Kelman, a member
of APA's board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology:

	"The POWs have been assigned the role of heroes in a war that
has  no  heroes-the  central  role  in  an  elaborate drama staged to
provide justification  of  the  President's  policy,  to  create  the
illusion of victory, and to arouse a sense of patriotic fervor."

	Here is another quote from Dr. Kelman's statement:

	"From  all  indications, the public context of the homecoming
deviated from the procedures recommended by psychologists working  on
Operation  Homecoming  and  adopted by the Prisoner of War-Missing in
Action  Task  Force  in  the  Department  of  Defense  itself,  which
envisaged a quiet, private homecoming, without fanfare and crowds, in
order to insure that  the  returnees  would  not  be  psychologically
overwhelmed.

	"It  seems  the procedures that the psychological consultants
an the Task Force considered to be in the best interests of  the  men
were  overruled  by  the political and public-relations objectives of
higher political and military authorities."

	Here is a quote from the APA's release:

	"The hesitancy of the Department of Defense to reveal medical
an  psychological  car procedures for the POWs has prompted the board
to continue in its investigation."

	The  first  statement  from  Dr.  Kelman  makes  a  political
judgment  about  the  war (it has no heroes) and a political judgment
about the motivation of the military authorities.  He is entitled  to
that opinion.

	The  second  statement  is  a tentative professional judgment
that is quite vague when applied to  concrete  cases.   For  example,
Captain   Denton,   Colonel  Risner  and  Major  Alvarez  gave  press
conferences.  Is it hinted that the press conferences  or  what  they
said  were  involuntary  or  is  it hinted that they should have been
prevented for the best interests of Captain  Denton,  Colonel  Risner
and   Major   Alvarez?    Could  they  have  been  prevented  without
re-imprisoning these men?  Perhaps they should  have  been  prevented
for the best interests of other prisoners?

	I get the impression that

	1.  The  psychogical  profession is too big for its boots.  I
confess that I have long had this impression.  Namely, their  leaders
think  that their professional judgment without seeing the men should
override the preferences of the men.

	2. Dr. Kelman has let his politics influence his professional
judgment.  Imagine  that  the  men had returned with mainly pro North
Vietnamese views.  One can imagine that the Administration  would  be
happy  for  a  professional  opinion asserting that the men should be
kept from the press (by force if necessary) until they have recovered
from  the  brain  washing.   It  is hard for me to imagine Dr. Kelman
being their tame expert in this matter.

	3. The American Psychological Association has  expressed  its
professional arrogance and political views.

	Anyone  who  has  a problem requiring psychological expertise
had better take this fact into account if he contemplates asking  the
leading   scientific   and   professional  organization  in  American
psychology for advice.