As someone who has visited Guantanamo with the former presidents of the American Psychological and the American Psychiatric Associations (in Oct. 2005), the American Psychiatric has been from the beginning adamant in its belief that psychiatrists should not be involved in interrogations that are coercive. Compare the following statements. The American Psychological Association, issued a report in July, 2005 stating that psychologists consulting in interrogation involving national security should be “mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require ethical consideration.” ( This is fairly permissive.) The American Psychiatric Association, in its statement of the same time, is more restrictive in its guidelines. Members can serve as behavior consultants so long as there is no “coercive” element to the interrogation. See Neil Lewis, “Guantanamo Tour Focuses on Medical Ethics,” New York Times, Sunday, November, 13, 2005, A19. These are old statements. I believe they have been updated, but they give you a sense of the difference, early on in the debate. I have written on this in a number of pieces, including a piece that just appeared in DISSENT, Winter issue.
I should add that psychologists do serve as behavioral science consultation team (called by the military, “BISCUIT”) members, typically advising on interrogation plans. They are not in the interrogation room, but on the other side of a one way mirror. They are restricted from receiving information from health care providers on medical records, though there have been breaches. Only in emergencies, according to the new medical guidelines issued by the DOD, are psychiatrists permitted to be “biscuits” in interrogation settings. But it is easy to imagine that information may pass easily between staff who serve together on the base.
Also, there are well documented reports that psychologists training our own troops in survival and resilience techniques if captured have “reverse engineered” those methods for use at GITMO. During my visit there, though, those methods (essentially hold overs from our engagements in Korea and VN) were being replaced with “rapport building” techniques.
To read DISSENT piece (click here) and for earlier pieces I wrote for the LA Times (click here)
Nancy Sherman