Dr. Z is of course Dr. Zimbardo, the researcher who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment. Within psychology he simply goes by "Dr. Z."Dr. Z wrote:THE ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS IN NATIONAL SECURITY: A FOLLOW-UP.
Thank-you all for your attendance. Thank-you to my rotation for cobbling the presentation together. A special appreciation for the questions asked, which brought to light further comment:
Question 1: What is the most effective interrogation technique with a terrorist?
Indeed, we must obtain reliable information from terrorists who plot against the United States. Military psychologists utilize empirically based interrogation techniques. They study body language and other indicators of dissembled truth. Raport enhaces cooperation. Fatigue diminishes performance. Emotional stress speeds fatigue, especially if deprived of recovery time. While the science of interrogation explores the efficacy of such techniques, documents such as the APA 2005 PENS Task Force, delineate the ethical boundaries. It seems diminishing returns occur before the crossing of ethical boundaries. More stress is not better. It is simply abusive.
The question exceeds my expertise, though psychologists, with their commitment to ethics and science and their knowledge of human behavior, should lead this particular aspect of national security.
Question 2: Is there a role for psychologists in the interrogation of terrorists?
Some believe an institutional policy of abuse was developed with input by some individuals with psychology degrees. They have been called torture teachers. Their identities are known. The senate is reportedly investigating them. They can be researched through Democracy Now. Org.
Even the most critical voices fail to implicate the majority of psychologists. In fact, military psychologists on the Biscuit Teams (Behavioral Science Consultants) have been credited with helping to bring the atrocities to light. While there is no role for psychologists in the torture and abuse of terrorists, possible roles for psychologists in the interrogation of terrorists include:
1) Differentiate innocent detainees from terrorists.
2) Identify effective techniques for the interrogation of terrorists.
3) Empirically validate interrogations techniques.
4) Train interrogators in these techniques, including their limitations.
5) Monitor the implementation of these techniques.
6) Protect the detainee from excesses and abuses.
7) Identify culturally sensitive, rapport-building approaches to the prisoner.
Military psychologists face tremendous pressures, both internal and external, to drift beyond their role. The majority of military psychologists may have managed these complexities admirably and fittingly represented professional psychology, though this history warrants further investigation. Regardless of current events, a professional psychologist trained to think independently and objectively on multiple levels about complex issues, grounded in the psychoanalysis of his or her own power issues, committed to the humane treatment of human beings, and schooled in the science of interrogation, belongs in this area of national security. Safeguards familiar to clinical psychologists (i.e. consultation, specialized training, etc.) may further reduce behavioral drift.
Question 3: What is the purpose of abuse?
Abusive interrogators rationalize that psychological collapse eradicates the psychological mechanisms adhering one to their cause…or maybe they will capitulate out of fear. This has not worked with any martyrs of which I am familiar.
Abusive interrogation meets the disturbed need of the abuser. Period.
The TENS document delineates ethical boundaries for psychologists involved in interrogation. Familiarize yourself with it, form your opinion, and join the debate. In that way psychology will get it right. Conversely, psychology abdicates its role in national security at peril to the detainees and our own security.
FOR THOSE GOING TO APA:
Review the American Psychiatric Association's position on interrogation before granting them the high ground. They do not mention their use of medication (truth serum, etc.). Nor will they discipline those involved in interrogation.
Be careful of generalizations. Think critically: Exactly what psychologists did exactly what? How many, what percentage? How many, what percentage, conducted themselves otherwise? Some contributed to the abuse. Did others intercede? Check the speaker's references. "They say…," is not a researched statement. Remember, "If you can keep your head when those about you are losing theirs…then you can fruitfully attend a controversial APA convention."
FINALLY: If the APA stands for the Abusive Psychology Association, we must fix that. If not, we must correct the record.
Dr. Z
He is referring to the APA ethical guidelines which allow psychologists to guide and participate in torture. Psychiatrist ethical guidelines do not allow such guidance or participation.
I loved this part, "This has not worked with any martyrs of which I am familiar.
Abusive interrogation meets the disturbed need of the abuser. Period."
Go Dr. Z!
