[Ppnews] The "Ethical Interrogation"

[Political Prisoner News]

The "Ethical Interrogation": The Myth of Michael Gelles and the 
al-Qahtani Interrogation

December 07, 2009 By Stephen Soldz


<http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/stephensoldz>Stephen Soldz's 
ZSpace Page

<https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>Join ZSpace

Several public accounts of abusive interrogations at Guantanamo have 
praised psychologist Dr. Michael Gelles for his opposition to these 
abuses. Similarly, the American Psychological Association (APA) has 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/02/19/apas-rhea-farberman-responds-to-questions-from-the-swedish-journal-of-psychology/>repeatedly 
<http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1285473>pointed 
to actions of Dr. Gelles to instantiate their claim that 
psychologists played a crucial role in opposing abuses and protecting 
detainees. Gelles also has been a regular 
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4645>public 
presence, discussing the errors at Guantanamo while 
<http://www.apa.org/ethics/pdfs/gellesletter.pdf> advocating for the 
APA's "policy of participation" in interrogations. The APA policy 
encourages psychologists to aid interrogations to keep them "safe, 
legal, ethical, and effective." But a recently released Defense 
Department document challenges Dr. Gelles's role as an exemplar of 
psychological ethics in interrogations.

As reported by <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361462/>Bill Dedman, 
<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805>Phillipe 
Sands, and 
<http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact?printable=true>Jane 
Mayer, Gelles objected to the "harsh" interrogation tactics being 
used at Guantanamo. In particular, he strenuously objected to the 
plans to 
<http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf>"reverse 
engineer" the tactics used by the military's 
<http://counterpunch.org/soldz06072007.html>Survival, Evasion, 
Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program to inculcate strategies for 
resistance to torture in US service members at high risk for capture.

In November 2002, the military planned to use these SERE-based 
techniques on prisoner 063, 
<http://ajobonline.com/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140>Mohammed al 
Qahtani, one of several US captives dubbed the "20th hijacker." 
Gelles and colleagues from the Criminal Investigative Task Force 
(CITF), the FBI, and other agencies proposed an alternative 
interrogation plan for al Qahtani, one that did not involve use of 
SERE techniques. This plan was rejected. Instead, al-Qahtani was 
<http://ajobonline.com/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140>subjected to 
an interrogation that met the legal definition of "torture," 
according to Bush Administration appointee Susan Crawford, convener 
of the Guantanamo Military Commissions. [Phillipe Sands detailed the 
development of the al-Qahtani torture plan in his book, 
<http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Team-Rumsfelds-Betrayal-American/dp/0230614434/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258992364&sr=8-3>The 
Torture Team, an extract from which was published in 
<http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805>Vanity 
Fair. Sands also describes the alternate CITF/FBI plan as written by 
"Gelles' team" (p. 130).] Gelles reported his concerns regarding use 
of SERE techniques and the al-Qahtani interrogation up the chain of 
command, leading Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora to protest and 
force at least temporary change in official interrogation policy in 
early 2003.

A few weeks ago, in response to an ACLU's years-long Freedom of 
Information Act Request, the alternative interrogation plan for 
al-Qahtani was quietly released, apparently unnoticed between other 
documents on FBI and CITF concerns about Guantanamo practices. 
According to the alternative plan document, it was drafted:

"by representatives of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), and 
behavioral specialists, psychiatrists and psychologists with the 
Criminal Investigation Task Force (ClTF)."

Given the prominent roles of mental health professionals in its 
drafting, the alternative "rapport-based" plan should be examined for 
consistency with Gelles' and the other authors' ethical 
responsibilities as psychologists and psychiatrists.

At the time the plan was written, on November 22, 2002, al-Qahtani 
had been in isolation for three months and was exhibiting signs of 
severe mental deterioration to the extent of psychosis. An FBI agent 
<http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_4622_4624.pdf>described 
this deterioration in a report to headquarters:

"In September or October of 2002 FBI agents observed that a canine 
was used in an aggressive manner to intimidate detainee __ after he 
had been subjected to intense isolation for over three months. During 
that time period, __ was totally isolated (with the exception of 
occasional interrogations) in a cell that was always flooded with 
light. By late November, the detainee was evidencing behavior 
consistent with extreme psychological trauma (talking to non-existent 
people, reporting hearing voices, crouching in the corner of a cell 
covered with a sheet for hours on end)."

Gelles and the other authors on the CITF/FBI interrogation plan also 
noticed his psychological distress:

"#63's behavior has changed significantly during his three months of 
isolation. He spends much of his day covered by a sheet, either 
crouched in the corner of his cell or hunched on his knees on top of 
his bed. These behaviors appear to be unrelated to his praying 
activities. His cell has no exterior windows, and because it is 
continuously lit, he is prevented from orientating himself as to time 
of day. Recently, he was observed by a hidden video camera having 
conversations with non-existent people. During his last interview on 
11/17/02, he reported hearing unusual sounds which he believes are 
evil spirits, including Satan."

After discussing whether al-Qahtani was faking his symptoms, without 
coming to a conclusion, the interrogation plan proposed exploiting 
al-Qahtani's distress from his prolonged isolation:

"Although we are uncertain as to his mental status and recommend a 
mental evaluation be conducted, there is little doubt that #63 is 
hungry for human interaction. Our plan is designed to exploit this 
need and to create an environment in which it [is] easier for #63 to 
please the interviewer with whom he has come to have complete trust 
and dependence thus developing a motivation to be forthright and 
cooperative in providing reliable information."

In order to exploit this hunger for human contact, the CITF/FBI plan 
recommended that he be kept in continued isolation for up to an 
additional year:

"The long-term strategy would be to create an environment in which 
total dependence and trust between #63 and the interviewer is 
established at its own pace. Such a plan should be given up to a year 
to complete although the actual time may be considerably shorter 
depending on how events unfold."

Al-Qahtani's hunger for human contact would be exploited by making 
his interrogator the only person he saw over this year:

"To help foster an environment conducive to the establishment of 
dependence and trust, we propose that the interviewer initially meet 
with #63 every other day. This should be his only contact with other 
people, and we believe he will anxiously look forward to these meetings."

It was recommended that al-Qahtani be periodically subjected to 
additional stresses so that his interrogator could become his savior:

"Built into this plan will be periodic stressors such as the 
stripping of certain items of comfort from him by guards, such as the 
removal of his mirror or the issuance of a sheet, half the size of 
the one he likes to drape around himself. These and other stressors 
will be carefully and subtly introduced not by the interrogator, but 
by guards. We believe that #63 will likely look to his only human 
contact, his interviewer, in an attempt to gain help. The interviewer 
status as a caregiver and problem-solver will thus be increased.... 
[D]emands by #63 for restoration of things taken from him should be 
honored slowly so as to create the impression that the interviewer 
can ultimately help him although not necessarily quickly or with ease."

This plan for prolonged manipulation to develop al-Qahtani's complete 
dependency might or might not be ethical as an interrogation 
strategy. However, former police investigator and veteran Army 
counterintelligence operative David DeBatto, who has supervised many 
hundreds of interrogations, disparaged the use of isolation in the 
CITF/FBI interrogation plan for al Quitani (personal communication, 
November 28, 2009):

"That [the initial three-months isolation] is an excessively long 
time and on the face of it, violates the UCMJ [Uniform Code of 
Military Justice] and international law. Two major problems I have 
with this is first, solitary is a punishment reserved for the worst 
kind of behavior by inmates in a prison, not for refusing to answer 
questions. Second, it is the worst possible way to interrogate anyone 
and will almost always produce negative results."

At a minimum, there is no question that the participation of 
psychologists and psychiatrists in the development of this 
interrogation plan led to the recommendation of strategies that would 
be likely to cause severe psychological distress and clearly violated 
psychological and psychiatric ethics.

Prolonged isolation frequently causes severe emotional distress, 
including psychotic symptoms identical to those appearing in 
al-Qahtani, such as hearing non-existent voices and talking to 
non-existent people. Physicians for Human Rights summed up the 
psychological and psychiatric evidence regarding the harmful effects 
of isolation or "solitary confinement" in their 
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/leave-no-marks.pdf>Leave 
No Marks report on the US use of psychological torture:

"Findings from clinical research performed by prominent psychologists 
such as Dr. Stuart Grassian and Dr. Craig Haney, highlight the 
destructive impact of solitary confinement. Effects include 
depression, anxiety, difficulties with concentration and memory, 
hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucinations and perceptual 
distortions, paranoia, suicidal thoughts and behavior, and problems 
with impulse control.

"According to Dr. Haney many of the negative effects of solitary 
confinement are analogous to the acute reactions suffered by torture 
and trauma victims, including posttraumatic stress disorder and the 
kind of psychiatric consequences that plague victims of what are 
called 'deprivation and constraint' torture techniques" (pp. 32-33).

The American Psychiatric Association, concerned about the conflicts 
inherent in such interrogation assistance, in 2006 explicitly 
condemned any direct involvement of their members in interrogations 
of specific detainees or prisoners, in domestic or national security 
settings. The 
<http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200601.pdf>Association 
stated in May 2006:

"No psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of 
persons held in custody by military or civilian investigative or law 
enforcement authorities, whether in the United States or elsewhere. 
Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation 
room, asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the 
use of specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees."

Until the membership 
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opednews.com%2Farticles%2FPsychologists-Reject-the-D-by-Stephen-Soldz-080922-841.html&ei=1asWS6-bHcOglAfSl62uCQ&usg=AFQjCNFlw27V7rADoO5OemUgLHUvly_S_A&sig2=cWt98Ss37I5>forced 
a change in APA policy in September 2008, psychologists were allowed 
to aid interrogations as long as they did not participate in torture 
or "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" and 
followed the <http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html>APA's ethics 
code. Psychologists like Michael Gelles are subject to the APA ethics 
code, if they are members of the Association, as is Dr. Gelles. In 
addition, the military requires psychologists consulting to 
interrogations to be licensed by a state as health providers and most 
states require adherence to the APA ethics code as a requirement of licensure.

According to the APA, the prolonged use of isolation to aid 
interrogations, as was clearly the case with al-Qahtani, constitutes 
"cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." In August 2007, the APA, 
under member pressure, 
<http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html>banned 
psychologist participation in a number of interrogation techniques as 
constituting either "torture" or "cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishment," including

"the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an 
interrogation process... isolation... used in a manner that 
represents significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a 
reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm."

After this resolution was passed, it came under withering 
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/apa_faq_coalition_comments_v12c.pdf>criticism 
from 
<http://i2.democracynow.org/2007/8/17/dissident_members_challenge_american_psychological_association>dissident 
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org%2Fsoldz08252007.html&ei=x7YWS6jCOc2-lAfgiKzLBQ&usg=AFQjCNHluNAsc9rxFuu9uSv00CTBkApSSQ&sig2=OruXuWSlv4bOQ7eMXq2JCg>psychologists 
and the 
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/21/psychologists/index.html>press. 
As a consequence, the APA's Ethics Director was forced to issue a 
<http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001724>clarifying 
statement in response to reports of four weeks mandatory isolation 
for new detainees at Guantanamo:

"[T]he 2007 Resolution should never be interpreted as allowing 
isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation, or sleep 
deprivation either alone or in combination to be used as 
interrogation techniques to break down a detainee in order to elicit 
information."

In February 2008, in response to criticism, the APA amended its 2007 
Resolution to unambiguously condemn psychologist involvement in the 
use of isolation. The 
<http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/amend022208.html>revised 
resolution 
<http://www.zhelp.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16711>proclaimed:

"An absolute prohibition against the following techniques...: ... 
isolation.... Psychologists are absolutely prohibited from knowingly 
planning, designing, participating in or assisting in the use of all 
condemned techniques at any time and may not enlist others to employ 
these techniques in order to circumvent this resolution's prohibition."

The CITF/FBI interrogation plan for al-Qahtani indicates that Gelles 
clearly engaged in a prohibited activity: "knowingly planning, 
designing... the use of ... condemned techniques... and may not 
enlist others to employ these techniques...." Interestingly, when I 
raised concerns about the loophole regarding isolation in the 2007 
Resolution at the APA convention the day after its passage, Gelles 
said to me "Steve, you have to understand that isolation is often 
used only very temporarily, only for a few hours" [quote from 
memory]. He did not mention its use for months at Guantanamo nor his 
team's recommendation that it be used for up to a year on al-Qahtani.

Another ethical concern arises from the reported psychological 
distress that al-Qahtani was experiencing prior to the CITF/FBI 
interrogation plan being developed. The interrogation plan notes 
al-Qahtani's psychotic symptoms, but, other than suggesting a mental 
evaluation, they simply view his vulnerability as an opportunity for 
exploitation. This ignoring of al-Qahtani's mental distress violates 
the fundamental 
<http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#principle_a>Principle A 
undergirding the entire APA ethics code:

"Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take 
care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek 
to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact 
professionally and other affected persons.... When conflicts occur 
among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve 
these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm."

There is simply no evidence that Gelles and the other authors of this 
plan sought to "avoid or minimize harm." Rather, as the plan makes 
clear, their intention was to systematically increase and exploit 
distress and disorientation experienced by al-Qahtani, in violation 
of the ethics code.

The entire plan, with its emphasis on "exploit[ing]" al-Qahtani's 
need for human contact violates the ethic's code's ban on exploitation:

"Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have 
supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as clients/patients, 
students, supervisees, research participants, and employees." 
[<http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#3_08>Ethics Standard 3.08]

Clearly Gelles and the other mental health professionals had, at a 
minimum, "evaluative authority" over al-Qahtani as they developed 
their plans to exploit his weaknesses.

Counterintelligence operative DeBatto also expressed concerns 
regarding the plan's proposal to impose additional stressors on 
al-Qahtani in order to render him more dependent upon the 
interrogator. As expressed by DeBatto:

"Depriving him of sheets, a mirror and adding other `stressors' is 
utter nonsense and counterproductive. He has already endured months 
of stressors. Forcing him to endure more as a form of a 'stick and 
carrot' approach will produce nothing of value. It also violates the 
interrogators' ethical training and is blatantly in violation of U.S. 
and international law."

Gelles' proposals in the al-Qahtani case must be deemed unethical 
and, if executed, would have constituted gross violations of the APA 
Ethics code, as the APA itself asserted in detailing unethical 
conduct in detainee treatment in its resolutions of 2007 and 2008. 
The APA's parading Gelles as a "heroic" upholder of ethical standards 
for military interrogations must be revisited. Gelles now joins the 
ranks of other APA psychologists, including 
<http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/05/torture/>Morgan Banks, 
<http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-groups-call-canada-investigate-guantanamo-psychologist-possible-tortu>Larry 
James, and <http://counterpunch.org/soldz05062009.html>Bryce Lefever, 
whom the organization upheld as models for ethical military 
interrogation processes, but who subsequently appeared sympathetic to 
or may have aided abusive practices.

As psychologist Jeffrey Kaye pointed out last summer in 
<http://pubrecord.org/special-to-the-public-record/2722/former-psychologist-involved-pre-911/>two 
<http://pubrecord.org/torture/4321/broken-faith-military-psychologist/>articles 
[see my commentary <http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22167>here] 
ethical concerns about Gelles' pre-Guantanamo interrogation actions 
had already been raised with the APA long prior to APA's lauding him 
as the standard-bearer for psychological ethics in interrogations. 
Attorney Jonathan Turley reported filing an APA ethics complaint 
against Gelles for abuses in the prolonged isolation and 
interrogation of Navy Chief Petty Officer Daniel King, following an 
ambiguous polygraph result. As described by Turley in 
<http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/king/ssci_turley.html>testimony before 
the Senate Intelligence Committee, King requested a mental health 
consultation because he felt he was losing his grip on reality. Dr. 
Gelles met with King for a consultation and, according to Turley, 
ignored King's reports of suicidal thoughts. Instead, Gelles made 
help for King contingent upon King's confession to espionage charges 
he had denied. Turley, who represented King, reports that the APA did 
not respond to his ethics complaint against Gelles. To our knowledge, 
the APA has never commented publicly on Turley's charges, or on the 
ethics of Gelles' treatment of King.

In any case, it turns out that Gelles was well aware of the potential 
ethical conflicts involved in his work with the CITF. In a 2003 paper 
in the Journal of Threat Assessment, apparently written at about the 
same time, Gelles and colleague Patrick Ewing argued that 
psychiatrists and psychologists involved in national security work 
should not be subject to professional ethics codes:

"Given the grave dangers faced by the United States and its allies 
post September 11, the government can ill afford to lose the input of 
psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in 
cases involving national safety and security. Such input has been and 
will continue to be vital to protecting the lives of many Americans, 
civilian and military, at home and abroad. In order to maintain the 
ability and willingness of these dedicated professionals to continue 
in these roles, we cannot continue to place them in situations where 
the ethics of their conduct will be judged, post hoc, either by rules 
that have little if any relevance to their vital governmental 
functions or by professional organizations or licensing authorities 
based upon the weight the members of these bodies chose to afford 
competing interests..." (p. 106).

In 2005, two years after this article appeared, Gelles, along with 
James, Banks, and Lefever, was appointed by the APA, to the seminal 
APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National 
Security (PENS). This military- and intelligence-dominated group gave 
the ethical go-ahead for psychologists to aid detainee interrogations 
at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

In an <http://www.apa.org/ethics/pdfs/uwejacobs.pdf>open letter in 
2007, psychologist Uwe Jacobs posed a series of questions to Dr. 
Gelles including:

"[W]hat were the techniques used that you did not find objectionable? 
To cite a few examples, did you believe it was ethical to transport 
prisoners to Guantanamo under conditions of sensory deprivation, i.e. 
wearing hoods, goggles, earmuffs, and other devices designed to 
create sensory deprivation and isolation, along with very restrictive 
shackling? Did you believe it was ethical to keep prisoners in 
solitary confinement for very long periods of time? Is it ethical to 
deprive prisoners of sleep? Is it ethical to subject them to severe 
heat and cold, constant noises or lights, stress positions, short 
shackling, screaming abuse etc.? You know the list I am referring to. 
Do you agree that these techniques have long been proven to produce 
severe nervous system dysregulation and often lasting psychological 
damage? Do these techniques not by definition constitute torture, 
just as stated by the UN?"

Gelles refused to answer Jacobs' questions. We can surmise, from his 
earlier statements, that Gelles simply did not believe that 
intelligence psychologists should "be judged, post hoc, either by 
[ethical] rules that have little if any relevance to their vital 
governmental functions...." The APA has yet to explain why it 
appointed to the PENS task force someone who had already expressed 
disdain for the APA ethics code and why it continues to extol Gelles 
as a paragon of psychological ethics in interrogations.

Note: I would like to thank Jeffrey Kaye for pointing me to the Ewing 
and Gelles paper.



<mailto:ssoldz at bgsp.edu>Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, 
psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the 
<http://www.bgsp.edu/>Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He 
edits the <http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/>Psyche, Science, 
and Society blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical 
Psychology, one of the organizations working to change American 
Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive 
interrogations. He is President-Elect of 
<http://psysr.org/>Psychologists for Social Responsibility [PsySR].




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20091207/0b804e67/attachment.html>