Professional bodies enabled abusive interrogation by certifying it as safe and ethical

Evidence

In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, detainees were forcefully interrogated for actionable information to avoid future attacks. As previously noted, the Bush administration legally legitimized use of abusive forms of interrogation as not constituting torture by their narrow definition of torture. If it could be shown that the practices were also safe because they were monitored by health professionals, it would further legitimize their use and provide cover for authorizers of abusive methods and interrogators who implement them (Hoffman et al., 2015). It was also necessary to construe the methods as safe and not torture to evade international laws banning torture. The American Medical and Psychiatric Associations refused to participate in the interrogation program because it violated their ethical standards. The APA ended up providing the certification of safety. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2372 (#expands, via linked claim)

The APA convened a special task force, led by Stephen Behnke, director of the ethics office, to examine whether psychologists could ethically play the interrogatory role (Risen, 2015a). However, the task force was heavily stacked with Department of Defense (DoD) personnel interested in crafting an ethics code that placed no additional constraints on the DoD interrogation practices. … Based on this brief meeting, the group issued a report declaring that psychologists play a valuable and ethical role in training and advising interrogators. The APA altered its code of ethics, stating that psychologists have a dual ethical obligation—to refrain from inflicting harm on others and to protect the security of the nation. The latter addition to the code of ethics provided honorable justification in the name of national security for psychologists to participate in military interrogations. The APA board of directors declared an emergency meeting where they approved the report as official policy and then expedited its publication. The purpose for the hasty publication was to use it as an antitorture public relations statement in anticipation of a New Yorker article about to be published on the interrogation program. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2374 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Abusive interrogation practices were systemwide, not isolated aberrations.; Institutional ethical certification can legitimate abusive practices by construing them as safe. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2372; Ethics codes can be reinterpreted situationally to justify professional participation in torture. (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The APA’s safety certification legitimized torture and shielded its authorizers #expands (0.97)
• Institutional ethical certification can legitimate abusive practices by construing them as safe. #expands (0.96) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2372
• The APA ethics code was rewritten under military influence to justify interrogation roles #exemplifies (0.95) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2374