Technical problems have been largely resolved it seems. The Morale, Welfare, and Recreation building has a shaky electronic infrastructure. It houses seven VoIP phones and the only un-firewalled internet access (about 10 computers).
The internet and phones lines go down frequently but were recently out of action for about a week. I guess they have two guys in Afghanistan who travel around and fix this stuff, so we had to wait for one of those guys to get here.
The lack of phones really pissed off a lot of Soldiers.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Military Psychologists and Interrogation
Sometime in the fall of 2007 I received an email from some big shot in Washington DC or at Langley inviting me to volunteer for the behavioral science consultation teams, or BSCTs. The BSCTs are the teams of psychologists and technicians that provide some sort of unspecified (secret) consultation to interrogation teams at detention facilities. I have to admit that I briefly considered getting on the list, not because I want to be involved in interrogation, but because I thought Guantanamo might be a safe deployment, and it has a beach. I deleted the email.
What's interesting about the USAF powers-that-be asking for volunteers is that it signifies the controversial nature of these jobs. Psychologists have made the argument that by participating in interrogation teams, one may be inherently violating the ethical codes that govern the profession and the state licensing statutes. One of the central principles of all ethical codes is non maleficence, or doing no harm, and nterrogation hinges on a threat of harm-- I think that's what distinguishes it from "questioning".
A few years back the American Psychiatric Association resolved that their members will not participate in these teams, so military psychiatrists do not deploy in support of these teams:
“Physicians must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation, because a role as physician-interrogator undermines the physician’s role as healer…,” and “Physicians must not monitor interrogations with the intention of intervening in the process, because this constitutes direct participation in interrogation.”
But my professional organization, the American Psychological Association, has debated this for the last three years.
The psychological association's most recent ethics amendments strongly condemn coercive techniques adopted in the Bush administration's antiterrorism campaign. But its current guidelines covering practice conclude that "it is consistent with the A.P.A. ethics code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national-security-related purposes," as long as they do not participate in any of 19 coercive procedures, including waterboarding, the use of hoods and any physical assault.
Interrogation is, by nature, a psychological process and it makes sense that psychologists would fit naturally into these roles. From news accounts I have read, the military has reverse engineered the knowledge we have regarding interrogation resistance. We have solid ideas about how to resist interrogation, so we use this as a starting to point for developing techniques to break down resistance. It is generally accepted that straight-up violence can produce false positives— some people will say anything to stop the pain—this is a tried and true technique (I think it was pioneered by the Catholic Church back in Medieval Europe). But there are other ways to wear people down, exploit weaknesses, get them to divulge information that is not the direct result of coercion, thus limiting the likelihood that it is a "please make it stop" confession.
The problem comes when you take into account that psychologists in the military are licensed as health care providers and held to standards that are similar to those of physicians. If we participate in some process that actually harms or has the potential to harm an individual, then we violate our professional codes.
I know many psychologists who have left the APA due to it's open stance on interrogation. I know how I feel—I vote by not choosing to work in this capacity (which is an easy thing for most non-military psychologists). I feel that licensed behavioral health professionals should not work on interrogation teams. If the DoD wants psychological expertise, then they should train doctoral level consultants who are not licensed as health professionals. If psychologists want to work in this field, they should let their licenses lapse.
The topic of interrogation always makes me think of the character Gitmo from the Daily Show. If you haven't seen the show (who hasn't seen the Daily Show?) or if you haven't seen Gitmo, you should look for it on You Tube...
Gitmo, the Elmo puppet from Guantánamo Bay, became a vehicle for expressing the writers' "most agitated feelings about torture in a way that is — not to be too cute — that is not torture to listen to, and that is not purely strident,"
What's interesting about the USAF powers-that-be asking for volunteers is that it signifies the controversial nature of these jobs. Psychologists have made the argument that by participating in interrogation teams, one may be inherently violating the ethical codes that govern the profession and the state licensing statutes. One of the central principles of all ethical codes is non maleficence, or doing no harm, and nterrogation hinges on a threat of harm-- I think that's what distinguishes it from "questioning".
A few years back the American Psychiatric Association resolved that their members will not participate in these teams, so military psychiatrists do not deploy in support of these teams:
“Physicians must neither conduct nor directly participate in an interrogation, because a role as physician-interrogator undermines the physician’s role as healer…,” and “Physicians must not monitor interrogations with the intention of intervening in the process, because this constitutes direct participation in interrogation.”
But my professional organization, the American Psychological Association, has debated this for the last three years.
The psychological association's most recent ethics amendments strongly condemn coercive techniques adopted in the Bush administration's antiterrorism campaign. But its current guidelines covering practice conclude that "it is consistent with the A.P.A. ethics code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national-security-related purposes," as long as they do not participate in any of 19 coercive procedures, including waterboarding, the use of hoods and any physical assault.
Interrogation is, by nature, a psychological process and it makes sense that psychologists would fit naturally into these roles. From news accounts I have read, the military has reverse engineered the knowledge we have regarding interrogation resistance. We have solid ideas about how to resist interrogation, so we use this as a starting to point for developing techniques to break down resistance. It is generally accepted that straight-up violence can produce false positives— some people will say anything to stop the pain—this is a tried and true technique (I think it was pioneered by the Catholic Church back in Medieval Europe). But there are other ways to wear people down, exploit weaknesses, get them to divulge information that is not the direct result of coercion, thus limiting the likelihood that it is a "please make it stop" confession.
The problem comes when you take into account that psychologists in the military are licensed as health care providers and held to standards that are similar to those of physicians. If we participate in some process that actually harms or has the potential to harm an individual, then we violate our professional codes.
I know many psychologists who have left the APA due to it's open stance on interrogation. I know how I feel—I vote by not choosing to work in this capacity (which is an easy thing for most non-military psychologists). I feel that licensed behavioral health professionals should not work on interrogation teams. If the DoD wants psychological expertise, then they should train doctoral level consultants who are not licensed as health professionals. If psychologists want to work in this field, they should let their licenses lapse.
The topic of interrogation always makes me think of the character Gitmo from the Daily Show. If you haven't seen the show (who hasn't seen the Daily Show?) or if you haven't seen Gitmo, you should look for it on You Tube...
Gitmo, the Elmo puppet from Guantánamo Bay, became a vehicle for expressing the writers' "most agitated feelings about torture in a way that is — not to be too cute — that is not torture to listen to, and that is not purely strident,"
The Pretty Sewage Trailer
This is the sewage trailer-- pumps the sewage from the latrines and takes it off the FOB to get dumped in a field. My B-Hut is the one to the right, so that's why I always bitch about the smell of sewage. Note the hand painted mural of the F-16. Every vehicle here is hand painted or decorated in some way...
This is the back of the trailer-- an idyllic painting of a mosque, greenery, pavement, and snow covered mountains. I have to note that nothing is green here and there is no pavement to speak of, so this painting on the sewage trailer is an expression of fond hopes perhaps?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
