Psychologists and the military
Psychologists and their Involvement in Military Interrogations
Debi S Bowman
Grand Canyon University: PSY- 510
June 7, 2017
Psychologists and their Involvement in Military Interrogations
Military interrogation and the moral, ethical, and human rights implications that surround the term, is widely debated. On one side, there are those who believe military interrogations are torture techniques used to extract information from individuals and has, at times, clearly crossed the human rights, moral, and ethical boundaries that govern behavior. However, the other side of this controversy argues that the military should have the right to use certain interrogation techniques to extract information and it could save lives if done properly. After the events of 9/11, the controversy of military interrogation has become a widely debated situation. Is it right or is it going against basic human rights? How far should military interrogations go before it is considered too far, or is there no limit when it comes to protecting the lives of innocent humans. Psychologists have often been involved in military interrogations due to their vast knowledge of the human mind and behaviors. However, involving psychologists in military interrogations, especially when the interrogation leads to what could be classified as torture, does have negative ethical implications. The American Psychological Association (APA) lists within its code of ethics in section 3.04 (a), “Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable” (APA, 2016). If torture is a part of the military interrogation and the psychologist is involved in any form, he or she would be directly violating the APA’s ethical code as well as that individual’s human rights.
Human rights are an important factor to also look at when looking at a psychologist’s involvement in military interrogations.
According to the United Nations Human Rights (2017):
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of
residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.
We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are
all interrelated, independent and indivisible. (2017)
This would make one assume that anyone involved in extreme military interrogations, would be in violation of that individual’s human rights. However, it is possible that torture and other forms of military interrogations could be removed from this implication due to the fact that the outcome goal is in hopes of saving several humans from events such as 9/11 (the end justifies the means). Yet, it is not the official job of the psychologist involved in military interrogations to decide whether or not the torture or other extreme tactics are justified. This would be outside their competence and another violation of the APA’s code of ethics. Simply, a psychologist is not to do harm, as mentioned above via the APA’s ethical code. It would also be a violation of the ethical code and one’s human rights for the psychologist to develop these interrogation techniques that would inevitably do harm. As per Fisher, C. (2013), “In 2006, the APA Council of Representatives unequivocally prohibited participation of its members in torture and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment and included mock executions, water boarding, sexual humiliation, and exploitation of phobias or psychopathology” (p. 8). A psychologist is therefore bound by their code of ethics to not participate in any form of military interrogation that would lead to breaking the Council’s statement regarding involvement.
Although the APA’s Council of Representatives has concluded that psychologists will not be allowed to participate in any military interrogations involving extreme measures or torture, there is sufficient evidence that points to the theory that many psychologists are still involved to some extent within the military and that the psychological community is benefiting from their involvement.
According to Welch, B. (2010):
In an epilogue, it was reported that a prominent psychologist who developed relationships
with the government and military officials during this process has received a large sole
source grant to treat our military troops suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) with techniques from ‘positive psychology. (p. 175)
Thus, showing that many still have involvement with military interrogations and there can be benefits to having a relationship with the government and military. PTSD is a serious disorder, especially impacting military individuals. Help for these individuals can be difficult and complex, so this psychologist has utilized his or her relationship with the military and government to help more individuals.
Psychologists involvement within the military, as mentioned above, can be both beneficial and in violation with the APA Code of Ethics. Psychologists are involved in the military and military interrogations for numerous reasons. However, their involvement can come in direct conflict with their ethical codes and the law itself.
According to Johnson, B.W. of “Conflicts between ethics and law for military mental
health providers, (2010), he states the following:
At times, military providers may discover subtle incongruities or even clear-cut discord
between professional ethical standards and various DOD statutes and regulations. For
instance, mental health providers may find ethical-legal conflicts in areas as wide ranging
as confidentiality, multiple relationships, informed consent, participating in detainee
interrogation, and responding to client admission of non-heterosexual orientation.
(p. 549)
If a psychologist finds themselves in an ethical-legal dilemma, he or she must follow the APA’s guidelines for these situations. The psychologist must first look at the situation and if the situation violates the ethical code, such as do no harm, he or she must resolve the situation or put the ethical code(s) first, above the law. It is possible for a psychologist to reasonably assist in military interrogations and still uphold the APA’s Code of Ethics. However, when military interrogations lead to torture, the psychologist would not be in a position to continue in the service of the military in this situation without violating the code of ethics. However, there are implications that surround a psychologist’s involvement that point to his or her insight being helpful when it comes to developing techniques and evaluating the individual’s mental state.
According to Welch, B.W. (2010):
The demand for psychological expertise created new opportunities for entrepreneurial
psychologists. Moving quickly to fill that void, two relatively unknown psychologists,
James Mitchell and Bruce Jensen, directed the psychological component of the military’s
euphemistically named, “enhanced interrogation” program. (p. 176).
Program development along with aiding the military in saving lives by extracting information from certain individuals is the positive side to a psychologist’s involvement in military interrogations. Yet, if any human rights or ethical violation occurs, he or she would still be in violation of their ethical code.
Overall, the controversy that surrounds psychologist’s involvement in military interrogations is complex. When interrogations lead to torture, it is in direct violation of their ethical code and basic human rights. Torture can also be considered a violation of law. According to Costanzo, M., Gerrity, E., and Lykes, M.B. (2007), “As citizens, psychologists in the United States are required to observe a wide range of international and national treaties, conventions, and laws that prohibit torture” (p. 9). Thus, if the psychologist is directly involved in military interrogations that are related to torture, he or she would not only be in violation of the ethical code and human rights, but also law itself.
References
American Psychological Association. (2016). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/.
Costanzo, M., Gerrity, E., and Lykes, M. B. (2007). Psychologists and the use of torture in
interrogations. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 7-20.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00118.x
Fisher, C. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Johnson, B.W. (2010). Conflicts between ethics and law for military health providers. Military
Medicine, 175(8), 548-553.
United Nations Human Rights: Office of High Commissioner. (2017). What are human rights?
Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx
Welch, B.W. (2010). Moral drift and the American psychological association: The road to
torture. Social Justice, 37(2/3), 175-182.