Citation

Soldz S. Torture 2022; 32(1/2): 193-200.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims)

DOI

10.7146/torture.v32i1-2.131536

PMID

35950433

Abstract

The post-9/11 United States abusive deten-tion and interrogation program brought atten-tion to the critical roles of health professionals generally and of psychologists more particu-larly in the modern administration of torture and other detainee abuse. Over a decade of controversy in the American Psychological Association (APA) and an independent in-vestigation finding APA collusion with the Bush administration's torture and coercive interrogation programs led to 2015 policies restricting the activities of psychologists in national security interrogations and illegal detention sites like Guantanamo. This con-troversy expanded to evaluation of a broader set of issues regarding the ethical roles of psy-chologists in furthering military and intelli-gence operations, or what has become known as Operational Psychology. Controversy over the extent to which Operational Psychology activities are consistent with psychological ethics has expanded since 2015 with critics calling for policies restraining Operational Psychologists from involvement in activities that cause greater than trivial unstipulated harm, lack informed consent, or are absent plausible independent ethical monitoring (due, for instance to security classification). Operational Psychologists have pushed back against any constraints on their actions other than US law and government regulations. This debate also raises a broader issue: are there limitations on the extent to which we, as members of democratic societies, can tolerate the use of psychological science and expertise to manipulate unwitting people?

Language: en

Keywords

Humans; United States; *Torture; *Prisoners/psychology; Democracy; Ethics, Professional; Societies, Scientific