Interrogation debate intensifies



APA President Gerald Koocher, Ph.D., says that psychologists have long served as consultants to military interrogations and information gathering for national security purposes. (photo by Tom Croke)

By Ami Albernaz

Following the reported abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, some psychologists are questioning the American Psychological Association policy issued last year that states it is ethical for psychologists to serve as consultants to military interrogations and information gathering for national security purposes. While the APA issued a resolution in August reaffirming its stance against torture and degrading treatment, a sizeable group of psychologists is asking that the association reverse its policy, arguing that it presents too slippery a slope for those working with the military under high-pressure circumstances.

Psychologists have long served as consultants for hostage negotiations and threat assessment; similarly, says Gerald Koocher, Ph.D., president of the APA, they can serve a beneficial role in training interrogators, preparing them to handle difficult and culturally sensitive situations. "Who should be asking the questions? How do you form a rapport with a hostile individual? How do you make sure people do not become hostile in response to hostility? These are some of the types of advice that can be provided," Koocher says.

Some psychologists who oppose the APA's policy say it does not provide clear guidelines by which those working with the military can know whether or not they are inflicting harm. Psychologists were among those to serve as behavioral science consultants that advised interrogators at Guantanamo, and in the future, some might find themselves serving as "arbiters of harm," says Steven Reisner, Ph.D., of the International Trauma Studies Program based at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

For Reisner and others, the August resolution did nothing to clarify matters. "It defined cruelty and inhuman and degrading behavior according to U.S. policy, not the Geneva Conventions," he says. "So the military has been saying all along that it does not engage in cruel and inhumane behavior, with a few exceptions at Guantanamo… The APA aligned itself with those definitions."

While "torture" is defined in the APA resolution in the same manner as the United Nations Declaration and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the term "cruel inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" is defined according to this year's McCain Amendment, which is aligned with the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the U.N. Convention. According to those reservations, the U.S. considers itself bound to the U.N. definition "only insofar as the term 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution." This, to some including Reisner, is too vague.

Koocher says that psychologists should not conflate their feelings on the APA policy with their views on the current administration. "We're a tax exempt, scientific non-profit and not about to debate Bush, Cheney, and the attorney general," he says. "Of course, APA had no definition of torture; it's not the sort of thing we do or know much about as psychologists. We supported the McCain amendment. McCain obviously knew first hand about torture."

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have put forth their own statements on the issue, which some psychologists see as taking a firmer stance against members' participation in interrogations. While both the American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association preclude direct participation by their members, they delineate the circumstances under which they can take part. The AMA report, for instance, states that doctors may "develop general interrogation strategies that are not coercive, but are humane and respect the rights of individuals." That the APA policy does not mention "coercive" in a similar way worries some psychologists.

"Coercive techniques can get [prisoners] to say not necessarily what is true, but what interrogators want them to say," says Lynne Layton, Ph.D., a psychologist in Brookline, Mass., one of more than 1,600 individuals (as of press time according to the petition's Web site) to have signed an online petition calling for the reversal of the APA policy. She adds that military strategies that psychologists have helped devise for training purposes are now being used to "break down" prisoners. "Any role that psychologists play in military interrogations is not likely to be good."

In a July/August APA Monitor article comparing the policies of the three associations, Stephen Behnke, Ph.D., J.D., director of APA's Ethics office, notes that psychologists and physicians involved in interrogations are those that work strictly as consultants and do not provide direct health-care services. "The absolute demarcation between caregiver and consultant to an interrogation is fundamental to both association positions," Behnke writes. He goes on to say that because of the nature of a psychologist's work, psychologists and physicians have different potential roles in interrogations. While the AMA prohibits doctors from monitoring interrogations "with the intention of intervening," psychologists should guard against "behavioral drift" or "deviation from professionally and ethically acceptable behavior" that "may lead to coercive interrogation techniques."

"Psychologists, as experts in human behavior, are trained to observe and intervene to prevent behavioral drift," Behnke writes.

The debate over whether psychologists should have stricter guidelines for participation as consultants in interrogations is not likely to end soon. Reisner and his colleagues are now pushing for a moratorium on psychologists' participation in interrogations until the matter can be reviewed.

Interrogation debate intensifies (October 2006 Issue)

Interrogation debate intensifies
(October 2006 Issue)