Letter to Barry S. Anton and Norman B. Anderson from Department of Defense regarding psychologists working in interrogation settings

Moving upstream in the post-Hoffman era: When ethical responsibilities conflict with the law.

“…A code governing psychologists’ ethics in future national security roles needs to fit all such contexts. We respectfully suggest that a blanket prohibition on participation by psychologists in national security interrogations does not” (Carson, 2016, p. 3). The question is, how exactly do we move forward?…”

“…One such opportunity was providing psychologists with training to have prescription privileges (Dittmann, 2003). A very recent example of opportunities for continued collaboration include the DoD requesting the presence of psychologists in a variety of roles, such as those that involve the provision of psychological and behavioral health services to persons in the military and their families in the following domains: substance abuse, domestic violence, intellectual abilities, suicide, and so forth (Carson, 2016). Hence, APA should generate more vocational opportunities both inside and outside of the military with consideration to domains that can be reasonably expected to expand (e.g., technology, tele-health, consequences of the HITECH Act, etc.…”

“…However, as allegations that psychologists developed enhanced interrogation techniques with the government’s financial support (Windrem, 2014) surfaced, the discipline’s relationship with the government became strained. Referencing the historical, mutually beneficial partnership that has existed between the DoD and psychology in a recent memo, the DoD asked APA to consider lifting the ban on psychologists’ participation in national security interrogations, lamenting the possible loss of well-qualified psychologists and a probable future of insufficient recruitment should it remain in place (Carson, 2016). Prior to the ban, APA supported the presence of psychologists in interrogations, claiming that psychologists were suitable for the role because the interrogations processes were fundamentally psychological, psychologists could assist with national security initiatives by extracting information (APA, 2007d), and psychologists would ensure the safety of involved parties (Behnke, 2006).…”