There is a role for psychologists in the interrogation of detainees by the American military and government, according to the American Psychological Association.
In the light of reports that psychiatrists and psychologists have participated in interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo Bay naval station, the psychological association released a statement from its Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security that broadly outlines the ethical obligations of psychologists in such settings.
The task force was established earlier this year. Its charge did not include an investigative or adjudicatory role, nor did it render any judgment about events that may have happened in national security related settings.
The report states, “It is consistent with the [American Psychological Association] Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes, as psychologists have a long-standing tradition of doing in other law enforcement contexts.”
The report listed the following 12 statements concerning psychologists' ethical obligations in national security work:
•
Psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
•
Psychologists are alert to acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and have an ethical obligation to report these acts to the appropriate authorities.
•
Psychologists who serve in the role of supporting an interrogation do not use health care information from an individual's medical record to the detriment of the individual's safety and well-being.
•
Psychologists do not engage in activities that violate the laws of the United States, although psychologists may refuse for ethical reasons to follow laws or orders that are unjust or that violate basic principles of human rights.
•
Psychologists are aware of and clarify their role in situations where the nature of their professional identity and professional function may be ambiguous.
•
Psychologists are sensitive to the problems inherent in mixing potentially inconsistent roles such as health care provider and consultant to an interrogation and refrain from engaging in such multiple relationships.
•
Psychologists may serve in various national security roles, such as consultant to an interrogation, in a manner that is consistent with the Ethics Code, and when doing so psychologists are mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require special ethical considerations.
•
Psychologists who consult on interrogation techniques are mindful that the individual being interrogated may not have engaged in untoward behavior and may not have information of interest to the interrogator.
•
Psychologists make clear the limits of confidentiality.
•
Psychologists are aware of and do not act beyond their competencies, except in unusual circumstances, such as set forth in the Ethics Code.
•
Psychologists clarify for themselves the identify of their client and retain ethical obligations to individuals who are not their clients.
•
Psychologists consult when they are facing difficult ethical dilemmas.
“Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security” is posted at<www.apa.org/releases/PENSTaskForceReportFinal.pdf>.
