This paper examines the tensions between the American Psychological Association's (APA) code of ethics and the involvement of psychologists in military interrogation of detainees following the September 11 attacks. It analyzes the merits and shortcomings of the APA's Policy on Ethics and National Security (PENS) report, changes in APA public policy, and the boundaries psychologists face when operating within national security settings. The paper also explores how U.S. policies on detainees, the influence of Pentagon and CIA on the APA, and conflicts between domestic and international law — including the Geneva Convention — have created ethical dilemmas for psychologists working in or around interrogation environments.
The paper demonstrates policy analysis through internal contradiction identification. By juxtaposing specific numbered principles within the same APA document — one prohibiting participation in torture and another permitting national security roles — the author reveals structural ambiguity in official ethics guidance. This technique of using a document against itself is a hallmark of rigorous policy critique.
The paper opens with a framing introduction establishing the core controversy, then moves through a sequence of increasingly specific analytical sections: a critique of the PENS task force, a review of policy amendments, an evaluation of ethical boundaries, a discussion of patient/client rights under APA principles, and finally an examination of the real-world impact on detainees. Each section adds a new layer to the central argument that APA's ethical framework, despite revisions, has struggled to protect both psychologists and detainees from institutional pressure.
United States interrogation policies and rules regarding detainees have been greatly criticized following the discovery of "black site" prisons outside the territory of the United States. While the American Psychological Association (APA) has extended its cooperation to law enforcement agencies with reference to the interrogation of war detainees, the APA's regulations and code of ethics have been receiving significant criticism from psychologists and human rights organizations alike. There is serious concern about the objectivity and effectiveness of psychologists when they are involved in interrogation sessions of international detainees conducted by agencies such as the Pentagon and CIA. These sessions have been found to be profoundly inhumane and brutal, violating the fundamental principles of both the APA code of ethics and international law.
Considering the nature of typical ethical conflicts faced by military and intelligence personnel, ethical consultation should be sought when professional ethics conflict with the objectives of activities undertaken by these personnel. This applies specifically with reference to the APA Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct related to the resolution of ethical issues. According to APA standards, "misuse of psychologists' work, conflicts between ethics and law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, conflicts between ethics and organizational demands, and reporting ethical violations" are all areas requiring professional consultation from the Ethics Committee (APA Ethics Committee, 2010, para. 1).
Compliance with ethical psychological standards in interrogation settings has been a growing concern for APA authorities. Considering the implications of interrogation methods on psychologists, it has been declared that psychologists shall not be present during interrogation sessions involving torture or physical and mental abuse. The American Psychological Association has issued various public statements condemning torture as unethical and unacceptable, yet it has chosen not to make these statements enforceable on its own membership through inclusion in the enforceable section of its ethics code (Pope, 2008).
Considering the merits and demerits of the APA PENS Report (2005), the Code of Ethics has set clear boundaries within which a psychologist may operate; however, it fails to define the measures through which a psychologist may preserve his or her objectivity, competence, and effectiveness. The PENS report clearly states: "Psychologists make clear the limits of confidentiality and do not act beyond their competencies. In addition, psychologists clarify for themselves the identity of their client and retain ethical obligations to individuals who are not their clients" (APA, 2005, p. 7). Furthermore, the report declares that psychologists must remain aware of their role during interrogation or in circumstances where that role is subject to ambiguity. However, in situations where a body of different professionals is employed to render an opinion or perform a given task, a psychologist's awareness of their personal role has limited scope in comparison to the group's collective judgment. Therefore, adherence to Statement 5 of this report fails to provide any details as to how the psychologist should preserve their individuality.
While the report clearly defines the code of ethics for psychologists and elaborates the nature of the role they may perform (specifically, not as a medical caregiver), it does not address a major issue: how a psychologist would handle confidentiality concerns and how he or she would prevent military authorities from drawing necessary information out of medical records available to the psychologist. Principle 2 of the report's twelve statements directs psychologists not to engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer training in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Yet Principle 7 directs that psychologists may serve in various national security-related roles (PENS, 2005). This internal contradiction placed a greater amount of stress on psychologists present during interrogations. In situations where authorization from appropriate authorities has been granted for torture and human abuse, psychologists are not provided with any guidelines for a recommended course of action.
According to several changes made in APA public policy regarding the role of psychologists in interrogation sessions, the APA has prohibited its psychologists from participating in various torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation techniques. The APA stated: "No psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of persons held in custody by military or civilian investigative or law enforcement authorities, whether in the United States or elsewhere. Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees" (Pope, 2008, Psychologists at the Center of the Controversy).
Furthermore, a 2008 referendum asserted that psychologists must not operate outside territories under the jurisdiction of international law, including Guantanamo, Bagram, or CIA and JSOC "black site" prisons, and shall not participate in interrogations that violate international law. The removal of Section 1.02 was also a major amendment to the APA code of ethics (Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, 2010). This section had previously allowed members to give preference to institutional orders when those orders and ethics conflicted. That clause has since been repealed.
As noted by Soldz (2009), "Like so many other institutions over the years since 9/11, the APA built its policies on psychologist involvement in interrogation upon a public foundation of denial of, rather than a grappling with, reality" (p. 139). However, the APA later took measures to ensure that its guidelines do not support any violation of human rights, requiring psychologists to report any inhumane behavior they witness. Yet the increasing influence of the Pentagon and CIA on the APA has made it difficult for psychologists to report such incidents to any authority. Reporting these incidents risks compromising their membership and endangering their careers, since affiliation with a body like the APA is mandatory for continued practice.
This concern was eventually addressed by the APA. The earlier task force, which was composed primarily of psychologists from the military, was replaced by a new body now constituted of members from APA's Division 48, the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence (Kaye, 2012).
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.