Ethical guideline evolution in psychological support to interrogation operations.

Abstract

Significant controversy has surrounded the use of psychologists as consultants to military commanders in the interrogation of captive enemy combatants. The evolution of ethical guidelines has rapidly brought standardization and guidance for the growing numbers of psychologists participating in these operations. This article recounts the integration of professional psychological resources in selected military operational units. It also relates the evolution of such resources and the development of ethical guidelines for psychologists supporting interrogation. Finally, the article advocates for the continuing role of psychologists in the provision of consultation to help ensure safe, legal, ethical, and effective military interrogation operations.

Are the American Psychological Association’s Detainee Interrogation Policies Ethical and Effective?

“…Another PENS member, in a coauthored article in an APA journal, wrote that “to run away from an area where we can help both the country and the individuals in detention is simply wrong” (Greene & Banks, 2009, p. 30).…”

“…Those who disagree with APA’s PENS policies can also be seen not as offering alternative approaches to this complex area but instead as seeking to cut and run. Another PENS member, in a coauthored article in an APA journal, wrote that “to run away from an area where we can help both the country and the individuals in detention is simply wrong” ( Greene & Banks, 2009 , p. 30).…”

Applying Cognitive Models of Deception to National Security Investigations: Considerations of Psychological Research, Law, and Ethical Practice

“…A crucial issue is whether the discipline of psychology should play an active as opposed to passive role in addressing threats to national security. In this regard, a critical distinction is drawn in light of the recent controversy regarding APA policy on interrogation techniques (Behnke, 2006;Carter & Abeles, 2009;Greene & Banks, 2009) between standardized assessments of potential insider threats and coercive methods of interrogation for detailed suspects. To ensure adherence to APA policy, ethical standards 1.02 and 1.03 were recently modified to include the following statement, "under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights" (APA, 2010).…”

Interrogating the role of mental health professionals in assessing torture

“…Those who work closely with the military or intelligence services are at risk of having their judgment distorted by the institutional pressures under which they work. Measures such as peer support and the development of guidelines 9 are not likely to overcome the challenge of trying to satisfy two masters 15 -the institution and the "patient." This conflict of interest usually finds in favour of the most powerful-the institution.…”