The Ethics of Interrogation: Professional Responsibility in an Age of Terror

Chapter Two: What’s Wrong with Supporting National Security? Psychology and the Pursuit of National Security

Two What’s Wrong with Supporting National Security? Psychology and the Pursuit of National Security Rightly understood, professionalism has a civic dimension. The theory of democratic professionalism . . . holds that a number of key professions have civic roles to play in contemporary democracy and that such civic roles both strengthen the legitimacy of professional authority and render that authority more transparent and more vulnerable to public influence. —Albert W. Dzur, Democratic Professionalism, 10 We saw in chapter 1 what a commitment to democratic deliberation looks like in the context of a debate among professionals about their role in serving the common good. At the core of the debate about whether psychologists should be involved with national security–related interrogations was a disagreement about whether the expertise gained through the study of human psychology could be used to design and implement coercive interrogations in the service of safeguarding the common good. For the majority of the members of the PENS task force the answer appeared to be that psychology could serve these ends, even if the means to those ends might sometimes be in tension with the code of ethics in the field. The leadership of the APA also appears to have held this view. The fight that erupted within the APA demonstrates just how passionate democratic deliberation can be. Charges and countercharges were made, alliances were formed, and strategies for doing battle were devised. That violence did not ensue is perhaps testimony to the power What’s Wrong with Supporting National Security? 45 of a code of professional ethics. Although battles were fought, the field of combat was the APA Code of Ethics. As we saw, both sides were constrained by that code, and both sought to interpret the code to support their position. As with all battles, there were winners and losers, and although both sides might dispute this assessment, in my view, the dissenters won. Perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence supporting this assessment is the shift in rhetoric of one of the central figures in the debate, Gerald Koocher. From external appearances, Koocher is an unlikely warrior. With a boyish face, wire-rimmed glasses, and an ever-present bow tie, Koocher looks more the part of a kindly pediatrician than a tough political insider with an acid pen. Yet Koocher, a past president of the APA and an ex officio member of the PENS task force—he represented the APA Council of Representatives to the committee—was an outspoken advocate for the involvement of psychologists in interrogations, and initially he showed very little regard for constraints of international law. For example, in a notorious post to the PENS e-mail list, Koocher wrote: “I have zero interest in entangling APA with the nebulous, toothless, contradictory, and obfuscatory treaties that comprise ‘international law.’ Rather, I prefer to see APA take principled stands on policy issues where psychology has some scientific basis for doing so.”1 Nor did he seem inclined to condemn abusive practices alleged to have involved psychologists. Instead, he condemned the allegations. Writing in the “President’s Column” in Monitor on Psychology , a publication of the APA, Koocher displayed his contempt. He described the opponents of the PENS report as “opportunistic commentators masquerading as scholars.” He claimed that when the APA leadership asked for evidence of alleged abuses by mental health professionals , critics provided none. “No data have been forthcoming from these same critics,” Koocher wrote, “and no APA members have been linked to unprofessional behaviors. The traditional journalistic dictum of reporting who, what, where and when seems notably absent.”2 However, by 2009 Koocher appeared to recognize the need for a stronger (and broader) condemnation of interrogation techniques. Ethical standards in the mental health professions, he said, demand that psychologists not engage in either deception or coercion. “Deceptive and coercive interrogation techniques,” he wrote, “violate these moral values.”3 From worrying only about whether psychologists may engage 46 Chapter Two in coercive interrogations if they are following orders or not violating US law, Koocher had arrived at a position that “engaging in illegal, inhumane , cruel, degrading, or other torturous practices can never pass as ethically acceptable conduct under any rationale.”4 Even if I am right that opponents of the PENS report prevailed in demonstrating that the report left too much room for psychologists to engage in abusive practices in national security–related interrogations, and even if the opponents are right that this...