America’s Global War on Terror (GWOT) has thrown up a number of ethical issues that are under active debate in American society. One of the most contentious issues of the Bush administration’s GWOT policies has been the treatment of detainees held under the suspicion of being a terrorist or abetting terrorism. The conditions under which these detainees were being held in Guantanamo Bay and another secret ‘Black sites’ run by the CIA and other overt and covert US law enforcement agencies have come under severe criticism by members on both sides of the political spectrum, the media, as well as associated professionals in the field. The American Psychological Association has raised the bar of this debate by questioning the ethics of psychologists participating or aiding interrogations. Callahan in her book ‘Ethical Issues in Professional Life’ has stated that it is a fight for the soul of the profession. This essay examines the dynamics of interrogations and the ethical issues that it raises for members of the medical fraternity who participate or aid in the process.
As per a New York Times report of 15 August 2008, The American Psychological Association’s (APA) most recent ethics amendments strongly condemned coercive techniques adopted in the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism campaign, limiting the role of the 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. The question that arises is that does this really help the cause of Human rights or will it lead to greater abuse? Are ethics above the nation or do they form a subset of it and thus at times require a nuanced approach?
Western sociological philosophies on which the American state has been built believe that man in his natural form wishes to remain free. This wish to remain free, shorn of any other compulsion, can only be possible if he ‘kills’ off all other competition. Thus in a natural state, the strongest tend to survive and the weak need to align together to face the strong. When the man entered into a society he did so to enhance the safety and security of his being and indeed his family. On forming a society and then a state, the man agreed to cede some of his freedoms in exchange for security and safety, and peace that the state promised to provide. This ‘social contract’ has been the building block, epitomized by John Locke as the ‘raison d’être for the birth of the American nation – The Land of the Free. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of every citizen of the country to provide for services, when required especially in times of war or when the very survival of the country is at stake. These services could be by direct participation as soldiers and warriors or as associated professionals that help the overall war effort or national interests. Therefore, if the state requires from its citizens, certain services, especially when those services have a limited number of professionals, then it becomes incumbent on the citizens to honor the social contract in manners where the end result benefits the state.
Senator John Mc Cain has held that torture is inhumane and has steered the McCain amendment that would ban “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of any prisoner by any agent of the United States. The humanists may argue that ‘third degree’ measures are open to abuse such as those that took place at Abu Ghraib. Others have pointed out that the excesses of Stalin’s notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police) forced Stalin to dismantle the NKVD. The implication of this argument is that any easy dispensation given to law enforcement agencies to legitimately use torture will ultimately criminalize the upholders of law with disastrous effects on the free American society. It could also lead to the interrogators becoming alcoholics or drug addicts, violent criminals, or, at the very least, despotic and abusive fathers and mothers. The APA argues that not only is the participation of psychologists in interrogation unethical, it also makes them vulnerable to legal action after the detainee has been released with no real protection from the state which in the first place ordered such interrogations. The law enforcement agencies may by mistake capture an insane person who claims to be a terrorist and use ‘third degree’ on such a person, after all, the thin line distinguishing sanity from insanity is difficult to determine.
It is precise because of these reasons that trained professionals like psychologists are needed in the interrogation rooms to bring sanity to the processes of interrogation that would in any way take place with or without them. A trained psychologist can probably extract more information from a suspect without using third degree with just psychological persuasion techniques. Even if, the nature of the case requires a certain amount of ‘third degree’ the psychologists’ presence can help to moderate the practice. Therefore, to put a blanket ban on participation on ’19 coercive procedures’ would be a grave mistake which will only exacerbate the situation and not help it. Without checks and balances, any human endeavor tends to gravitate toward the extremes. However, if stringent measures are put into place, code of conduct well defined, and accountability well established then chances of abuse in implementing ‘third degree’ measures could be curbed.
The hawkish side of the argument is equally riveting. The world today lives in extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures. To state that the American democratic structure will sit by a ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario in deference to ‘human rights’ and humane means of extracting information would be a dereliction of duty. The prime responsibility of any state is to ensure the safety and security of its people. If in the defense of this safety and security, certain values require modifications albeit, even harsh measures such as torture then it can be considered as legitimate or even mandatory. The terrorists who plant bombs or plan to kill innocent civilians do not come under the definition of lawful combatants and thus do not deserve the same treatment codified in the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war. By restricting one’s own options, only helps to strengthen the hand of the enemy who in any case has no value for the lives of their targets. Thus under any law of natural justice, of self-defense, and anticipatory self-defense, extreme measures such as torture are justifiable for the defense of the country and its people. Therefore, if there arises a hypothetical situation where a captured terrorist or a detainee knows where a ‘dirty bomb’ or any other weapon that can cause mass destruction is hidden, and the time is running out for that weapon to explode which has the potential to cause thousands of deaths of innocent civilians, then should the psychologists still hold on to their ‘ethical’ code and not utilize their expertise in extracting information by whatever means and save the lives of the innocents? Would it be more ethical to stand by and watch relatives, friends, and citizens die by the dozens in deference to an ‘ethical code’, or would the psychologists use whatever means that are necessary to prevent such an event from happening? Do democracy and democratic values mean that democratic nations continue to take hits, play by the rules while the other side adheres to none? In such a case would a democracy survive? Would not the people in such a democracy question the legitimacy of the very social contract that brought the democratic nation-state to life?
It is obvious that these are hard questions to answer. However, ethics require to be balanced with the urgency of the situation and the need of the hour. The primacy of ‘greater good’ over ‘individual good’ is an undeniable principle of statecraft. Despite the observations of Amnesty International, Humans Rights Watch, and such, interrogations are a necessary evil that will continue to happen. By placing limitations on which all activities in an interrogation a psychologist should participate, will only do more harm to upholding human rights in their truest sense. Psychologists are required in the interrogation rooms, with or without a third degree under the full protection of the law. Suitable provisions of the law would require an amendment to reflect these changed realities. Psychologists would be required in the interrogation processes to prevent abuses and limit the scope of third-degree measures. Without the presence of psychologists, many innocent, naturally insane, and marginally associated suspects may undergo more cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment than they would have otherwise. Thus the ‘soul of the profession’ would remain intact as long as psychologists continue to engage with the wider policies of the government.