title: Are the American Psychological Association's Detainee Interrogation Policies Ethical and Effective?: Key Claims, Documents, and Results.
abstract: After 9-11, the United States began interrogating detainees at settings such as Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo. The American Psychological Association (APA) supported psychologists' involvement in interrogations, adopted formal policies, and made an array of public assurances. This article's purpose is to highlight key APA decisions, policies, procedures, documents, and public statements in urgent need of rethinking and to suggest questions that may be useful in a serious assessment, such as, "However well intended, were APA's interrogation policies ethically sound?"; "Were they valid, realistic, and able to achieve their purpose?"; "Were other approaches available that would address interrogation issues more directly, comprehensively, and actively, that were more ethically and scientifically based, and that would have had a greater likelihood of success?"; and "Should APA continue to endorse its post-9-11 detainee interrogation policies?"
authors.affiliation: Norwalk, CT, USA.
authors.forename: Kenneth S
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Pope
references.citation: Lancet. 2005 Aug 6-12;366(9484):429-31
references.pmid: 16084233
references.citation: Am Psychol. 2006 Jul-Aug;61(5):383-95
references.pmid: 16846300
references.citation: Am Psychol. 2002 Dec;57(12):1060-73
references.pmid: 12613157
references.citation: Am Psychol. 1996 Sep;51(9):957-74
references.pmid: 8819364
references.citation: Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2011;7:459-81
references.pmid: 21219192