After 9–11, the United States began interrogating detainees at
settings such as Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo. The American Psychological
Association (APA) supported psychologists’ involvement in
interrogations, adopted formal policies, and made an array of public assurances.
This article’s purpose is to highlight key APA decisions, policies,
procedures, documents, and public statements in urgent need of rethinking and to
suggest questions that may be useful in a serious assessment, such as,
“However well intended, were APA’s interrogation policies
ethically sound?”; “Were they valid, realistic,
and able to achieve their purpose?”; “Were
other approaches available that would address interrogation issues more
directly, comprehensively, and actively, that were more ethically and
scientifically based, and that would have had a greater likelihood of
success?”; and “Should APA continue to endorse
its post-9–11 detainee interrogation
policies?”