Professional ethics and national security: Some current issues.

Abstract

For nearly a century, psychologists have increasingly contributed a variety of services to the public safety and national security of the U.S. government and its people. Recently, some have alleged that psychologists working in national security operations have engaged in unethical conduct by interrogating and otherwise using "torture" against persons who have been detained as a result of terroristic activities against American personnel and other targets. It is noted that the American Psychological Association (APA) ruled many years ago that torture was unethical. This article considers such allegations within the context of relevant principles and standards of the APA Ethics Code. Ethical conduct is ultimately the responsibility of the individual psychologist who must be flexibly guided by the aspirations and guidelines of the APA Ethics Code. Furthermore, current events require that APA consider the circumstances within which certain psychologists operate and accordingly revisit the existing ethical standards.

The work of psychologists in the U.S. Intelligence community.

“…Role Conflict for IC Psychologists Gravitz (2009) explores the ethical implications of operational psychology as practiced in relation to interviewing detainees who were apprehended as a result of their alleged connection to terrorist or hostile activities. While such interviews are said to have been successful in obtaining information that prevented further attacks, some (nonmilitary?)…”

“…They have influenced APA to add a policy prohibiting its members from participating in interviews and interrogations with detainees to the Code. Gravitz (2009) says the issue is that the APA Ethical Code includes the obligation to protect the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work. If psychologists engage in practices that the APA determines is unethical, they may lose their APA membership and their State-granted licenses to practice as psychologists.…”

“…The issue could be elevated to the IC executive level and they, hopefully in consultation with representatives of all IC psychologists, could determine how and from whom they may obtain legitimate authorization. Gravitz (2009) did not fully explore many options to deal with this role conflict. From the perspective of the Swamp Model, next steps might include establishing functional engagement among IC psychologists and between them and their primary external referent group, the APA, to resolve or manage their role conflict.…”

“…The most parsimonious option is to determine how much, if any, latitude there is in interpreting and applying the existing APA Ethics Code. Gravitz (2009) says a review of the APA Ethics Code was undertaken to determine if existing language could be interpreted in such a way as to permit psychologists to participate in detainee interrogations without entailing any risk of censure or loss of licenses. However, the results and consequences of this review are not clear.…”

The Hoffman report: The lesson we learned (?)

“…Olson, Soldz, and Davis (2008) presented extensive evidence they collected regarding an APA direct involvement into torture practices dating back to 2006–2007 when leaks, as well as other circumstantial and ‘not so circumstantial’ evidences, became available about interrogation practices used in detention facilities in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (e.g., Hausman, 2006; Soldz & Assange, 2007; Mayer & Goodman, 2007; Lichtenstein, 2013). Interestingly, Melvin Gravitz, a psychologist with supposedly strong links to the CIA (Hoffman et al., 2015), raised concerns about tortures, interrogations and psychologists’ involvement into the national security work (Gravitz, 2009).…”