BGSP Faculty Member Dr. Stephen Soldz Featured in Several Media Outlets Regarding CIA Torture Report

51 thoughts on “BGSP Faculty Member Dr. Stephen Soldz Featured in Several Media Outlets Regarding CIA Torture Report”

1. In my opinion it is unethical to use learned helplessness to try to get information from terrorists or any other people. Will it be effective? That is hard to say. If we had the chance to use learned helplessness on a terrorist and save hundreds of people, would that make it ethical? Would we be okay with it if our men were overseas in another country and were succumbed to learned helplessness? These are the questions we must think about and decide where our values lie. I do however believe that using psychological torture like learned helplessness could lead to being a slippery slope, and how do we come back from actions such as those in the long run. It is also interesting that Soldz talks about research comparing long term effects of sleep deprivation to be similar to that of physical torture. Which is worse and which is more effective? Unfortunately we won’t be able to get this information without using psychological torture methods which leads us again to the question of whether it is ethical.

   1. I believe all types of torture are unethical. Learned helplessness has longlasting effects that could greatly incapacitate the victim. I am not surprised that the U.S is doing this sort of thing. We have a long history of war and torture.

2. Wondering what solid evidence we have of CIA torture tactics yielding any results. It was said that these EITs were completely unrelated to gaining any knowledge in the Osama Bin Laden case, but what about the situations that we may never hear about (i.e. terror plots that were revealed by someone under sleep deprivation that were subsequently handled and squashed by the CIA)? This report that was leaked cannot be taken without context or scientific analysis. The ethics of the psychologists taking $80million to come up with these tactics is a whole other issue in itself. How is psychology influencing the interrogation techniques in other countries? Can we be the “nice guys” and ignore what our enemies are utilizing?

3. This article highlights the fundamental ethical conflict humans feel over ‘necessary evils’, or causing some harm for greater good. But here we can see how under scrutiny, the necessity of CIA enhanced interrogation techniques reveals itself to be a falsity, considering the lack of evidence in its ability to yield useful information. Soldz explains how there are other, more researched and successful ways to extract information from terrorists that do not cause psychological or physical harm. The continued use of torture under the guise of national protection is a falsity perpetuated by laziness of officials and the ignorance of the public. The use of psychologists in the development of these ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques is particularly reprehensible because the public’s trust in the good intentions of healthcare providers was abused to hide and permit the unethical use of torture. This type of governmental deception is especially damaging to the public attitude and trust of not just the government but the medical professionals who are supposed to “Do no harm”. All parties seem to be dodging responsibility in this matter, but the fact is, in it is situations like this responsibility falls on many shoulders and must be widely tackled to handle the problematic policies, persons, and beliefs permitting this behavior.

4. In the event of such a large scale terrorist attack like 9/11 I believe that there should be a certain protocol in place that involves a variety of techniques including some degree of sleep depravation and isolation. I don’t believe it should be the first interrogation technique used for a person. There are, as Dr. Soldz said, other methods of good interrogation, comparing them to good police tactics when questioning a suspect who does not want to give up information. In the event that the first line of techniques is not working things like sleep deprivation and isolation should be introduced. This should be very closely controlled and monitored from a medical professional. This is in the event that it could possibly be saving more lives and preventing such a terrorist to carry on with anymore acts. I would also be interested to know other forms of psychological techniques that are used in interrogation.

5. It is my belief that utilizing these Enhanced Interrogation Techniques is unethical and comes far to close to crossing the line into torture. When Soldz spoke on the point of sleep deprivation being used as an EIT he included that in addition to someone being forced to stay awake for multiple days often times they are strapped in a way that they are standing the entire time. In my opinion that clearly crosses the line into torture, because that is harmful physically and psychologically for the individual. As someone who wants to make a career within the health profession, I strongly agree that health professionals should “do no harm” regardless of whether the individual before them is a terrorism suspect or a well loved professor. I believe that being able to learn valuable information from a suspect is extremely important and beneficial to our nation’s safety and security, and I think that any interrogations should be done safely and ethically regardless of the circumstance. Besides, if we switched this situation around, the United States would be outraged to find out that another country was utilizing techniques like these Enhanced Interrogation Techniques on our own people.

6. The use of “learned helplessness” and other “advanced interrogation” tactics was unethical. The premise behind using such techniques was to produce accurate intelligence. However, the data is not clear on how accurate such methods are. The NY Times revealed that the use of sleep deprivation and confinement produced subjects who were suggestible to misinformation. Thus, for the majority of people these tactics simply produce information that we want to hear, not information that is necessarily true. I believe that interrogation tactics should be on the basis of trust, such as the tactics used in WWII on Nazis with interrogators playing a game of chess that resulted in information casually revealed. Information willingly given due to a certain level of trust and rapport with the interrogator would be more accurate than information obtained through the torture of another person. I hope that for the future, interrogators will adhere to a stricter moral code instead of resolving to use any means that may, not definitely, save lives at the risk of destroying another.

7. I find it compelling that Soldz draws parallels between these tactics and Nazi practices. How can we publicly condemn the actions of another military power, and then use similar or equally unethical tactics within our own military and defense? From my understanding of ethical practices, there is no question about whether or not depriving somebody of sleep or implementing learned helplessness is ethical. It simply is not. If we can allow our government to act so hypocritically, then all rules of conduct in war seem to dissolve and there are no standards. We can then expect total and endless atrocities.
   Additionally, psychologists promoting the use of these tactics, as Soldz points out, jeopardize the legitimacy of the standards that should be upheld by health professionals. When psychologists or other health professionals violate their oaths to do no harm, the line between ethical and torturous is further blurred and we enter a state of inconsistent and unreliable expectations.

8. I believe there are many other resources to obtain information from people than torturing them. Besides from it being completely unethical, no one has the right to torture a person for their own benefit. Maybe the use of torturing methods will actually help to get information, but why harm someone when there are more humane options available? The long-term effects of torture should be definitely considered here since tortured people are not only affected on the moment, but basically for life. As Carl Jung once said, “The healthy man does not torture others – generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers”. When a person is tortured, his mental state afterward the torture becomes completely broken, which can lead the person to believe that maybe what was done to him is justifiable. In that moment the tortured person has become completely corrupted and can start doing the same or similar things to others. In my opinion, the CIA should be well equipped to be able to find other ways to approach this type of cases.

9. While learning about the interrogation tactics that the CIA used to get information, I couldn’t help but think of how similar the strategies were to the Holocaust. Although they may not seem harsh because the CIA didn’t use gas chambers or concentration camps to torture people like the Nazis, the long-term effects of the interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation and water-boarding used by the CIA are similar to physical torture. In both cases, learned helplessness was used to get answers out of people. It is interesting as a society we we pride ourselves in our values and condemn the actions of World War 2, yet don’t see that the torture carried out by the CIA in actuality weaken’s our society’s values. If our soldiers killed civilians or terrorists and then were tortured in the same way as the CIA did, our country would be outraged. We have to remember that we all are humans and can find other ways to interrogate without doing harm.

10. I do believe this is unethical but then there is a gray area due to the sensitivity of the issue. It is unethical to use learned helplessness since it is purposely using torture as a mode of retrieving information. The interrogator intentionally increases the persons level of helplessness and hopelessness with the hope the person will eventually give up and disclose what ever information is desired. Using such tactics on a person is quite detrimental to the individual since it can adverse affects. For example in extreme prolonged sleep deprivation can lead to severe emotional and moral impairment and ultimately lead to psychosis. This is terrible for the person but the gray area comes into play when this person exposes a possible terror attack, would the tactics used then be considered unethical if it saved a million lives?

11. A major concern I have is simply the credibility of the information that is attained through torture tactics. Can you rationalize using learned helpless if the detainee is providing 100% factual information that leads to the thwarting of future terrorist plots? I think that I can. But if it is likely that prisoners will just say whatever they can (and I believe this happens frequently) to stop the torture then other approaches need to be explored.

12. I believe that what the CIA commissioned to be the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques with the two psychologists to be torture and as Dr. Soldz stated it violates what people in the mental health profession try to do in ‘do no harm and help one another’. Some might argue that these tactics were essential in our efforts to counterterrorism and to find Bin Laden but some reports say that the information we got out of it was irrelevant to his capture. CIA Director Brennan fails to use the word torture and other people also have avoided using the word as well as denying that it was torture. If binding someone in a fixed standing position for days on end, or feeding them rectally, all with the numerous psychological distresses they endured isn’t considered torture, then I don’t know what would be. Dr. Soldz also talks about the lack of accountability in the Presidency which I didn’t realize until now and agree with what he said.

13. After reading this article, these interrogation techniques are without a doubt, unethical. However, I still feel conflicted about my take on this whole situation. Soldz talks about how the torture memo does not protect the detainee and is only used as legal protection for the torturer. This means that once the detainee is in CIA’s custody, it is the “norm” for the Agency to use their “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” because they will not be able to get into trouble for the torture and unethical ways they use against the detainee as long as they get the information they need. This goes against all that the US stands for in Human Rights. On the other hand, If the CIA were to take a different, more ethical approach towards the detainees so that they give up the information, but still gets false information, what happens then? In terms of stopping terrorism, national security will still be compromised. People will then likely blame the CIA for incompetence on the whole process. The sad truth is that there is no “better” way, especially when it comes to something as large and unpredictable as terrorism. Are people willing to compromise National Security in the name of Human Rights or are they willing to compromise Human Rights in the name of National Security?

14. Torture is torture. You can’t justify it by saying it’s what science tells us that we need to do. Seeing as how there already are interrogation techniques that DON’T cause harm, why not use those instead? Build rapport with the prisoner and wait for them to open up. I know it’s not that simple, of course, but I’m not an expert.

15. As many of the other commenters are saying, I also feel that the use of the enhanced interrogation techniques is unethical. One commenter raised the idea of doing as little harm as possible for the greatest good and I feel that could be the key idea that these interrogation techniques operate under, but can one really claim that idea if there is no evidence that these methods work? I understand that statement of doing harm is a compromise (such as the pain and discomfort of removing a cancerous tumor), but in this instance there is no real gain if the information received is false. If the information is false, then what is the point of the interrogation especially if it is known that these methods do not produce results? All of it seems odd to me, that it is continuing, when it appears to be blatantly doing harm.

16. Pingback: HUMAN RESOURCES Social Engineering In The 20th Century HQ FULL

17. When it comes to protecting the nation from a possible terrorist threat, I’ll admit that certain measures need to be taken. Sometimes force is required to extract information that can prevent a bomb from exploding or an attack capable of hurting or killing people. That being said, any psychologist that engages in this form of “enhanced interrogation” or “torture lite” is violating the main principle of psychology: do no harm. The CIA and psychologists that participate in torture justify these methods by denying any long-term harm or damage to the suspect, but it is hard to believe that water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and being forced to sit or stand in uncomfortable positions for days will not cause any long-term harm. Dr. Soldz put it nicely when he challenged the CIA’s justification of using psychologists to make sure the interrogation did not get out of hand as a “get out of jail free card.” These psychologists take an active role in creating and overseeing torture techniques that normalize torture in society when it should be disdained. There are other psychological tactics used frequently to extract information from unwilling suspects, but the use of psychology to develop torture methods is unethical.

18. After reading this, I feel like the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques can be put alongside the experiments the Nazis did to their prisoners. I recently read that the Nazi doctors did all their inhumane experiments that disregarded human lives all “in the name of science”, and this article also brings up the point that science had a huge role in deciding how to interrogate prisoners. Both were inhumane and pretty unethical. The two men who helped create the interrogation techniques, I wonder if they felt like they were playing God, knowing they held the suffering and joy of many men in their hands. I honestly don’t understand why the CIA just didn’t employ the tactics used to interrogate the Nazis back in WWII where everything was based on trust and the interrogator had to build up rapport before getting answers. It obviously worked back than. Wouldn’t it have been easier to use a technique that the CIA already knew was going to work then creating a whole new technique that they didn’t even know was going to work or not?

19. While I do understand how psychologists that are involved in developing or administering EITs’ are in violation of the “do no harm” and other components of the ethical code that health professionals live by, I feel that there has to be a way to use psychological tactics to enhance interrogation techniques without inflicting torture. I am very torn on this matter. To a certain extent I feel that creating a feeling of learned helplessness does not quite qualify as a form of torture, but at the same time there are the obvious implications that learned helplessness has on mental illness. I feel that this is a personally conflicting issue. As a Criminal Justice major, I am interested in interrogation and investigative tactics , I find it very hard to make a definitive decision on whether I am opposed to psychologists being involved.

20. Strapping someone to a wall to be in a standing position for days.
    Sleep deprivation.

    Stopping right there, I know that many people will argue over whether or not it is torture by definition, as many people see the necessity of torture to acquire information. But when it brings about so much psychological harm that it induces “learned helplessness”, or a state where the prisoner won’t even escape if they can? That’s when it becomes torture.

    Inducing someone to that state is entirely unethical, especially for psychologists. As doctor Sold stated, medical professionals operate under a “do no harm” code. They use their expertise to help people, not to manipulate or dehumanize in any way.

    Hearing about the tactics that were used to elicit information, I thought back to reading Elie Weisel’s “Night”, a novel about a young man’s experience in a concentration camp. It has been universally acknowledged that the Nazis tortured the Jews. When Weisel describes the other Jews in the camp, he often described how some people had a look in their eyes like they had given up. I believe he is describing the same “learned hopelessness” that the prisoners experienced.

    There are other means of obtaining information; this is not the way.

21. Using torture as a means of gaining information at the most basic level is extremely unethical. For psychologists to be involved in any way saddens me, because psychologists are taught and believe in doing no harm through their practice, and once that is ethical code is breached, there is no going back. While the information gained through these tactics may have been useful, I do believe that there are better ways to gain that information. As stated in this article, after WWII, Nazi generals were treated humanely, and gave out information over board games. Tactics like this are what we should be using, because regardless of the nature of their crimes, people are still people and deserve humane treatment.

22. Personally, I understand both sides of the controversy, but I do feel that it is justified to use psychological interrogation tactics to gain information that is beneficial to the safety of this nation. It is definitely a better tactic compared to water boarding or experimental “mind control” drugs and such. Yes, sometimes psychological wounds are harder to heal, but torture causes psychological wounds as well. Therefore isn’t it better to use psychological techniques in interrogation compared to using physical violence?

23. I stand closely with Dr. Soldz in the belief that utilizing skills from the psychology wheelhouse for torture goes against the heart of what psychology is. Constructs such as “learned helplessness” (mentioned in the interview with Dr. Soldz) were researched and explored in order to come to a better understanding of the human mind, not to take advantage of that knowledge. The argument that stood out most to me was the idea that torture, though it is something that it used, is likely not all that productive. I fear that torture will become a more defined method by way of the validation that integrating psychology into it will allow. It is almost as though once psychological methods are viewed as acceptably used for torture the liable status that psychology techniques currently hold could be jeopardized.

24. The article highlights how for the greater good, in this case, the interrogation of 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the practice of do no harm was violated. In order to justify such behavior, the CIA argued that such techniques were utilized based on the psychological theory of learned helplessness. Critics argue that due to the urgency and nature of the situation, it was necessary to employ torture tactics. However, if we use the principle of the ends justify the means, it makes such behavior a viable option in the future. Additionally, regardless of the reasoning behind such tactics, the CIA should take responsibility for such actions and not rationalize by claiming the theory of learned helplessness dictated their behavior. We also see diversion of responsibility when CIA Director Brennan fails to use the word torture.

    1. I feel that there are more ethical techniques to obtain information from individuals other than torture. For example, in the article it cited how officers built casual relationships with Nazi generals to gain information. This tactic involved no pain or fear. I’m wondering when the torture is suspended if no information is gained. I’m concerned individuals might just falsely confess to stop the torture. I do not think it is an effective method.

25. After having read this, my opinion has drastically shifted from last class. I now see that the psychologists were simply used by being labeled as “health professionals” for liability reasons. They were not truly valued for their expert (and I do mean expert) opinion. I feel as though psychologists were not valued at any point in this process and were completely undermined – in essence, they were not taken seriously, but rather acted as props for a stage set by…shocker, a small elite ruling class manipulating the law and most importantly the people to get what they want and use fear based tactics to scare the people into complacency. Wake up, people…let’s think for ourselves and use our voice for political change and social justice.

26. After watching the video and reading the article, I believe I can’t take a stance on the issue or related issues without learning more. Even if I were to try to learn more, the fact that the research that supports these kinds of tactics are hidden would prevent me from making any (feeble) attempt to assess its value. My subjective opinion on these strategies is that it is horrible, but I can understand situations where I would personally support a horrible thing (with much disgust) so that other “worse” things won’t happen. Knowledge is power, and people will use it in different ways. We can’t be so naive as to believe that unsavory means might be those that are most effective, and here we do not have enough information to decide. If I were in the CIA or a similar organization, I would not make public research that might reveal my participation or stance on these strategies. As a civilian, I believe there are unimaginable things that my country does that I would never expect. Like this issue, I can’t take a stance on those, because there is not enough information. As for the Psychologists participating (in whatever way), I wonder what the various Psychological organizations stances are on the definition of “Harm”. It seems like a good ideal, but a naive absolute. Surgery is harm, but it is done because it is believed the means justify the ends.

27. No matter what the circumstance, Psychologist should not partake in torture. Although it may seem extreme, even with the most dangerous criminals, I find torture, to be inhumane, and unnecessary. There is always a nonviolent alternative, but torture is frequently resorted to because it is the most obvious and available method. However, like the article stated, it is not proven to be effective. Psychologist, are ethically obliged to “do no harm” and no matter how you look at it, torture is harmful. It’s as simple as that.

28. The response of the CIA cheif, and his inability to call the techniques used “torture” makes me wonder if he himself may not agree with the techniques, atleast subconsciously and is in denial of the techniques actually being used. He says that he will leave it up to others to define or label the actions that were done, but dances around labeling them himself. Although the do no harm mind set would mean that a psychologist shouldn’t harm an individual, I think that if they feel it will be beneficial and help the greater good, even if if is at the hands of torturing someone else, then I think this would be beneficial.

29. I strongly believe that it is completely unethical for psychologists to partake in any form of torture regardless of its severity and long term effect. As stated in the article, psychology operates on the “do no harm” ethic, and psychologists are expected to use their expertise to help people not to hurt them. As people were able to obtain information from the Nazi generals after WWII over board games, I believe there are other more humane ways to obtain necessary information. If there are psychologists agreeing to assist in torture, I would question their ethical practice because harming another person goes against the basis of their work, no matter what is used to justify these actions.

30. Personally, I think that the fact that the article states that the CIA used the psychologists’ contribution to this project as a form of ‘ethical cover’ shows a clear understanding and maybe even an acceptance of the unethical nature of the interrogation. In light of that, I think that the ‘enhanced interrogation strategies’ used may as well be categorized under torture. Rather than question the ethical beliefs of the psychologists, I think that the use of psychologists to develop interrogation strategies as opposed to counseling for prisoners and convicts, should not be granted as the nature of their tasks and responsibilities have the tendency to be altered to not prioritize patient well being above all. As this is a fundamental policy that makes people feel secure enough to talk about the most personal topics in their lives to a complete stranger, I feel like the use of psychologists for such tasks would tarnish trust and confidence that the general population would have toward other people in that profession as well as ones related to it such as psychiatry. Furthermore, news articles on such a widely known topic will be read by billions of people all over the globe, and there is no controlling the consequences; a supposed example being the reduced use of psychologists in prisons as to avoid transference of ideas, while having a good intention, this policy would prevent every day criminals from getting help, which in turn would reduce feelings of security amongst the public.

31. Enhanced Interrogation Technique (EI) is not only unethical but also counter productive. Studies have shown that under extreme circumstances, the person being interrogated agrees to have committed the action in question just to end the suffering. There is no way to tell if the information obtained through EI has any shred of truth to it. I am aware that militants undergo training to combat interrogation and additional tactics might be required to obtain necessary information. However, the human body and mind has a limit for pain. Approaching this is just torture. At this point, regardless of the truth, the victim of the torture will agree to anything and everything just to make the pain stop. This is exceptionally inhumane and unethical. This goes against the oath psychologists take has mental healthcare professionals but we cannot criticize these psychologists because of how little information and certainty we have about the role they played in devising and executing the EIT.

    1. Naturally, this is a very difficult subject up for debate. There are valid points for both sides of the argument. It seemed like this piece of media was very biased and only focused on the negative and unethical aspects of what happened. This story was leaked and as usual, the media took it and put their own spin on it. While torture is undoubtedly unethical in nearly every situation, there are certainly exceptions to every rule. Despite what this video portrays, it is hard to say for a fact whether or not the practices carried out by the CIA did in fact lead to critical information that saved innocent lives. You have to remember that the people being tortured are very terrible, dangerous people who have done unimginable things. If using unethical methods will lead to information that saves countless innocent lives, it is tough to fully commit to the fact that these techniques should not be used. With that being said, if these techniques are to be used, there needs to be a clear line drawn as to where and when they can be used. If used in the wrong circumstances, these methods quickly become extremely unethical.

32. I personally believe that torture could have the potential to save lives if it is executed properly, with the right controls in place, and when used on particularly susceptible individuals. The problem is, that never happens, and probably never will. It is a well-documented fact that humans constantly overuse and abuse power when they are granted it over other individuals. Torture, with its devious intentions, is certainly no exception. Using it on the sole mastermind of an impending murderous plot will quickly morph into using it on a mentally unstable, under-informed pawn that will simply say anything to make the pain, be it physical or psychological, stop. And this leads us to the next critical flaw in torture: its efficacy. There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that torture doesn’t produce accurate, reliable, or in any other way viable intelligence that is of use to the torturer. Frequently, the victim will lie or create stories to stop the torture. And if the victim is pushed too far, they may be rendered so psychologically unstable that they may no longer be capable of divulging whatever it is that they are concealing. Simply put, there are more efficient, more ethical methods of interrogation that do not rely on pain or complete submission of the person being interrogated. These are the methods that need to researched, and employed.

33. I firmly believe that using torture to attain knowledge from individuals is unethical. In learned helplessness the individual is so worn down that they are reduced to the point of essentially becoming a puppet who will do and say anything necessary to make the torture stop. Things brings about many problems for those trying to attain the information. First, they have caused so much psychological and physiological harm to this individual that they may never be able to return to normal functioning. In addition, they have also communicated to society that this is an appropriate way to get desired results from those who do not cooperate because if an organization as grand as the CIA is approving it than the larger population may get the incorrect understanding that it is tolerable to perform these actions. However, the most important thing to point out is the fact that when informants are in the position where they feel hopeless and need to give up information in exchange for relief, that does not necessarily require it to be accurate information. Soldz even states that there is not proof that these tactics work in terms of providing truthful information, whereas there are more peaceful means that have higher rates of success but are going unused.

34. This interview with Professor Stephen Soldz reflects on the many unethical issues regarding torture use in the CIA, and suggests that there may be a more effective and ethical alternative for CIA interigations. What really stood out to me in this interview was lack of evidence to support the method of “learned helplessness” which seems as though it is being used as a cover up for these torture interrogations. Whether learned helplessness has been proven to be an effective method for retrieving critical information also remains unseen. In response to Vice magazines question on whether there have been any studies on learned helplessness and its usefulness in “divulging useful information”, Soldz responds that the information is classified which suggests that there is collected data that is not being shared with the public. He also added that the learned helplessness interrogation technique has people involved in the CIA concerned with the human ethics rules – which I find to be very alarming. However, Soldz later adds that building a relationship with those you are interrogating has been proven to be an effective method for retrieving information in the past. I personally find this style of interrogation to be a more humane method for retrieving critical information, and believe that it should be used as an alternative for CIA interrogations to ensure the comfort and safety of everyone involved.

35. I feel like there are others way to gain the information they needed. Torture is not the best or most humane thing to do in this circumstance. Psychologists should not be torturing anyone because they are meant to help people speak in non-harmful ways. We can not say whether the information obtained through this method is true or not, because the person might have just wanted it to stop so badly that they said what they wanted to hear to end their pain.

36. One of the most striking features in this article to me was the concept of healthcare providers as “get out of jail free cards.” I think this is a particularly prevalent in modern society, where the written consent of licensed professionals is used as backing for making major decisions. While this can be a great feature because it highlights a cultural expectation of trained individuals making prominent decisions in their field, it can also allow for scapegoating to occur for unethical decisions. It is a slippery slope to misuse the concept of a license simply for the sake of of making a decision seem more appealing.

37. This article exposes the conundrum of the CIA blindly accepting certain beliefs and tactics solely because they came from a ‘qualified’ position. It seems as though the CIA’s adoption of ‘enhanced interrogation tactics’ under the justification of science correlates with one’s ability to impose torture methods onto individuals without looking back. By adopting a plan that allowed individuals to say, “Science showed that this is the right thing to do,” or “It’s been scientifically proven that this works,” meant that individuals and the CIA were able to act torturously without feeling fully responsible for the pain they were inflicting. This is dangerous because the individual is able to inflict harm without feeling as though they’ve done something wrong, all while reaffirming their actions on the basis of science. The alternative, justified through example in WWII Nazi interrogations seems more promising, however this method is not used by the CIA. This could be because the concept of making friends with a terrorist over a game of chess, even if it is to extract valuable information, would be seen by society as anti-American, the ultimate sin. The CIA may believe that this would cause anger and confusion within the American society. So instead, the pain of inflicting pain on others is repressed, and torture is used as the primary method of information extraction; an unfortunate case.

38. There is no question in my mind that psychological torture is just as unethical and crude as physical torture as means of interrogation. Reading the article, it seems to me like in reality this choice of method has less to do with the greater good, (i.e. saving 100 lives by possibly destroying one), and more about personal hostility. The fact that the interrogators devote so much effort toward protecting themselves from legal action rather than protecting ethical codes or human life proves to me where their intentions lie. Lines can get blurry in times of war and the interrogators may feel that the longer the interrogation technique takes the more lives could be at stake, but to me the choice of psychological torture seems to be more out a general unwillingness to play a “good cop” role with potential terrorists. And like Soldz said, when any health professional comes into practice, they vow to always use their expertise to help people- and regardless of what they believe they could be doing in the long run, their direct influence is nothing but cruel.

39. This controversy of torture rings bells in my mind. In many ways it is something that has gone on in this country for years, despite attempts to pretend like it does not happen, for example events at Guantanamo Bay. Dr. Soldz brings up an interesting point about the ethics of being a doctor and doing no harm. I believe that using your knowledge about the brain and how and why people do certain things to get information out of them directly violates the ethics. However, today more than ever with horrible terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS and other extremist groups, I see the importance of getting information out of these criminals. Yet, I do have to wonder, are there ever any false confessions? Or people giving the interrogator what they want to hear rather than the truth? These are all factors that need to be considered. When I think of torture I think of physical abuses, yet I was intrigued to hear that sleep deprivation can be just, if not more damaging than physical torture.

40. It appears that we can all agree that no one can definitively say these tactics even work, and that alone is extremely concerning. It appears as though the CIA continued to work with ineffective tactics because they felt they did not have an alternative. Worse, it was orchestrated by psychologists who have a clear ethical guideline to do no harm. What I find interesting is that on US soil, in maximum security prisons, there has been clear evidence as to the torture that is solitary confinement. This is allowed on our own soil to people who no longer carry a threat to the safety of the United States. It causes true alarm as to the extent of the torture that occurs overseas to those who are considered a threat. These psychologists should be brought in to guide the interrogations away from torture, not towards it.

41. As Dr. Soldz remarked, a psychologist who uses their skills to knowingly engage in behavior such as the CIA torture program is blatantly violating the central “do no harm” principle of psychiatric care. Regardless of whether or not a mental health professional has determined that a torturous scenario to impart lasting psychological damage on someone, that professional’s initial engagement in the situation is harmful and unethical.
    Additionally, the CIA’s argument that “learned helplessness” and placing people in a submissive state will lead to them divulging information is flawed logic. In the case of torture, people looking to escape physical pain inflicted on them will likely give information to their torturers, but there is no guarantee that it will be correct or comprehensive information. The CIA would be far better off scrapping their torture program and returning to the positive relationship-focused methods of gathering information used in World War II; information that is willingly given is almost always more accurate and useful than information that has been forced out of someone.

42. The CIA’s torture tactics are mostly unethical and unreasonable. While these tactics have worked before in the past to get information from some people, it has failed in other attempts. In the new Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer”, Brendan Dassey was coerced into confessing to a crime that he did not commit- and the tactics were nowhere near as extreme as those that the CIA uses. With the amount of psychological research that we have today, there are numerous ways of getting information from people that does not involve that actual harm of someone both physically and emotionally.

43. I think psychological torture is unethical. All psychologist even the research psychologist are entitled to ethical code so I do see why this is a controversy. It is a significant area of study however I think use of learned helplessness is an unethical method of interrogation. I understand both perspectives, if CIA is not establishing a protocol for a psychological interrogation methods, they might fall behind compared to other countries where ethics might not be valued strongly as in US as well as the importance of the information that they need from the interrogation. Everyone would have a breaking point although interrogation and torture might be a quick way to solve a problem, a psychologist can also study a person’s behaviors against them to break them as well. Although this seems like a tougher progress each therapy consist of a milder version of this approach. Therefore, I think there should be other ethical ways to find an interrogation protocols than just psychological torture.

44. The fact that the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques were created by two psychologists is a rather horrifying thought. These two men used what they had learned as psychologists and as former Air Force SERE participants to create a system that they think will get the CIA relevant information, even though torture is not a proven way to get correct information from someone. Even worse they were payed millions and millions of dollars to do it.
    The power ethics in a torture scenario are one of the big factors that make it unethical. Although the people put in these horrible prisons may be bad people or have done awful things, the fact remains that just by being prisoners they are in a compromised position. Although I do not think we should necessarily protect these kinds of people from certain things, I also think that there are more ethical and probably more effective ways to get information than water-boarding the hell out of them.

45. Even though torture might seem to be an easy way to obtain an information required, it is undoubtedly unethical. No matter whether the techniques used are purely physical or are backed by psychological explanation, a torture leaves a long-lasting detrimental impact on the person and those methods in no means can be “validated” by a psychologist, as claimed by the CIA. Moreover, a psychologist violates the “do not harm” ethic when participating in such processes, as mentioned by Dr. Soldz, and compromises the image of psychologists as being untrustworthy.
    Not only those techniques are unethical, but they also do not guarantee the information received will be accurate, as opposed to the relationship-based way used with the Nazi generals. Thus, there is no good reason to continue utilizing Enhanced Interrogation Technique (EI) as it fails to be both useful and acceptable.

46. I found the article to be shocking and sad. Living in America in the 21st century, we should have the comfort of knowing that not only does our government does not support torture, but also that our trusted medical officials would never be complicit in causing physical or psychological harm. The faulty and secret research criteria make all of the conclusions provided by the CIA as suspect. I was particularly shocked by the lack of evidence about whether or not learned helplessness can lead to cooperation or even submission. Ultimately, this seems like a sad chapter in our nations history and an important reminder of the need for close monitoring and restrictions on the way psychological experiments are conducted.

47. This video deals with the ethical dilemma of using enhanced interrogation methods and/or torture to get information from prisoners. The main techniques that were used we’re sleep deprivation and isolation. In my opinion, psychologists use of torture to get information is unethical. Psychologists take an oath to “do no harm” and to help people. In situations of torture, psychologists are doing the opposite by directly harming people psychologically. They are harming people in order to get information. I can also see why people would be proponents of this technique if they think that it could potentially save lives. Whether or not this method is actually useful is still up for debate

48. There is definitely a fine line between attempting to extract information from someone in a reasonable manner verse using methods of torture to obtain this information. In my opinion, these methods of torture are very unethical regardless of the circumstances. It seems to me that the psychologists involved in this scenario could have had two different mindsets when conducting this torture. The first mindset is a disregard for all things humane in a desire for money, with the understanding that the act is unethical. The second mindset they could have had is assuming that the torture is okay due to the fact that these individuals may not be good people. Neither of these mindsets seem to be very ethical, and I believe there needs to be a stronger overarching power to determine whether or not an act is unethical before it is put in place. The means of torture should not be used and it seems this is more than just a problem with a few psychologists but rather a problem with society.

Comments are closed.