Shrinking From the War
The American Psychological Association appears in need of a professional consultation with some of its own members after adopting a rule this weekend aimed at the Bush administration's use of aggressive interrogation techniques of terrorists.
Among the sweeping restrictions imposed by the members of the APA, who were meeting in — where else? — San Francisco, were "an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, waterboarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information; as well as the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process: hooding, forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate, physical assault including slapping or shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death; and isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm."
Not only does the APA resolution ban psychologists from using drugs for the purpose of eliciting information, it even bans "the threatened use of any of the above techniques to the individual or to members of the individual's family." Some of those techniques — "rape," for example, are obviously out of bounds. But psychologists are Americans and human beings, too, and banning them from even threatening to use a truth serum on a detainee who might have knowledge of a pending terrorist attack will strike many who were in New York City when the terrorists struck as dainty in the extreme.
According to the Washington Post, the APA resolution also requires that psychologists who witness these interrogation techniques must intervene to stop them, inform their supervisors of these activities, and report if any other psychologists were involved. The offending psychologists can then lose their membership in the APA, a quick path to eventually losing their license to practice altogether, since many states require psychologists to belong to the APA.
One of the APA's principal rationales for adopting the new policy was the belief that aggressive interrogation techniques do not lead to productive information. But before adopting that stance, the APA might have checked with the former director of central intelligence, George Tenet. No friend of the Bush administration these days, Mr. Tenet defended aggressive interrogation techniques and their ability to save innocent lives when he was interviewed by CBS News earlier this year.
"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Mr. Tenet told "60 Minutes." "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us. 'Cause these are people that will never, ever, ever tell you a thing. These are people who know who's responsible for the next terrorist attack. These are hardened people that would kill you and me 30 seconds after they got out of wherever they were being held and wouldn't blink an eyelash."
In the same interview, Mr. Tenet also lashed out at the type of academic hand-wringing that typified the APA conference. "I've just lived through 3,000 people dying. This is not a clinical exercise. Maybe for you guys it's a clinical exercise. Not for me," Mr. Tenet said.
The practical effect of the APA's policy could be that psychologists will not participate in any type of interrogation techniques. That could hurt innocent victims of potential terrorist attacks, who might be made safer by having interrogations of terrorists guided by someone with knowledge of psychology. It could also hurt the terrorist detainees — the presence of psychologists at interrogations could actually help assure that government actions stay within the lines of what is appropriate. But few psychologists would want to risk their licenses. The safer bet will be to steer clear of interrogations entirely.
The policy the APA eventually adopted was the better of two options. A competing proposal would have forbidden APA members entirely from working with interrogators at Guantanamo Bay or other military detention centers. Even though that policy was voted down, the endorsed resolution wasn't much of an improvement.
Immediately after September 11, President Bush told the nation that the war on terror would involve many different facets and that individuals could be called upon to serve their country in unique ways. Psychologists will now be discouraged from heeding that call. One can understand the desire of psychologists to keep their role clear, as healers and caregivers, not warriors or police. But for an entire profession to demur from practices that could help prevent the next deadly terrorist attack on American soil only feeds into the accusations of those who claim the war is being fought by poor minorities while the well-educated and the wealthy escape their responsibilities. The shrinks are shrinking from helping America defeat the terrorist threat.
