- Discuss human rights as it relates to the controversy.
In 2005, a document issuing permission to psychologists to involve in the settings of military interrogations was passed. Back in 1994, the interrogations were claimed to be full of torture and harm to get the required information from the criminals to secure national security. Later on, the decision was made between the American Psychologists Association and U.S. Department of defence forces to include psychologists in the interrogation to make sure that interrogations were safe, legal and harmless. Again, a controversy has been prevailing since 2015 where the psychologists are forbidden to attend these settings. It is usually claimed that the involvement of psychologists gives no benefits but often violates human rights, and often the required information is challenging to obtain by the military forces. As this is the discussion about human rights, the APA has been banned being involved in soft torture and cruel investigation from some of the prisoners back in a critical case. It has already been decided that the U.S. will not allow soft torture or harm to the prisoners and will promote safe and legal investigations. The psychologists are often involved in making sure that the information is secure and safe and the criminals may be urged to speak out the facts they know. It has been observed that psychologists have been signed to take the information from the people on their consent, but most of the times, this rule is violated and consent form is signed by the prisoners even when they do not know what is written in it. They are usually not in the condition to read the full paper, and later on, they are tortured into giving the information they have signed for. Coming towards human rights, it is one of the important reasons for the people, even the prisoners that their privacy should not be disturbed. If the prisoner or criminal is not ready to give the required information, the torture and harm to him cannot help to resolve the solution. When it is already decided that the interrogations and investigations will not involve the forceful consent and will not allow disturbing the privacy, then it must be clear to everyone, and no psychologist should violate the rule. The rules were profoundly violated in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, where the prisoners were abused and had to face torture as well. Many of the experts and the people involved in interrogations have given their opinions, and they are of the view that interrogations are necessary. Still, torture is something that is against human rights and should not violate these. The terrorism has increased, and many times, the prisoners do not provide the required information to the interview panel. The physiologists are made to sit to ease the prisoners so they may utter the information they have. It is a common practice that was observed that they make the prisoners panic; they believe in soft torture and giving harm to them. The human rights demand to be polite and straight forward towards the prisoners, no doubt, the countries have their policies regarding them, and they have to follow it during the interrogations. It becomes necessary sometimes to use the torture during interrogations, but the case is not the same always. The case varies from time to time, and approaches of psychologists should also change. If APA claims that all the psychologists are working according to the guidelines by the defence department and are following the human rights, then the memberships of all those so-called experts should be banned from APA. The ban of APA from the interrogations also involve the behaviour of psychologists towards the prisoners. They show the discouraging and negative reaction towards the criminals. In the end, human rights are the fundamental priority, and these are needed to be fulfilled at any stage. If anyone violates these basic rules, he will face the consequences as it has been decided to ban the involvement and participation of psychologists in interrogations. The psychologists need to take care of the fact that the prisoners are human too, and they need to be respected at every cost. No organization or the country allow the humiliation of human rights in any case.
Explain the ethical implications that may arise for both sides of the controversy.
The phycologists have been involved in the interrogations since long in the name of national security and misusing their powers to mistreat the prisoners during these meeting. First of all, it is to be mentioned that this controversy is between U.S. defence department and the American Psychologists Association. APA has been supporting the psychologist to be involved in interrogations, and back in 2005, a document was presented to the government to work on. Several live examples, later on, proved that the behaviour of psychologists is totally against ethics. The ethical implications may arise between the two parties now because the U.S. defence department has succeeded to impose the ban on the involvement of psychologists in the settings. The psychologists were required to secure the national security and to help the interview panel, but the results were quite the opposite. A cold war has been started between these two parties. One of the views that approach by APA is harmful and against ethics. The action should be taken against such psychologists.
On the other hand, APA is claiming that it has been serving the country for years and always played a significant role in securing and promoting national security. It is imperative for the psychologists to be part of military interrogations. Their role is not limited to healthcare services only but they are also attached to military meetings and APA said that it is not possible to conduct the successful sessions with the prisoners without the involvement of psychologist. It is of the view that the psychologists have never violated the human rights and have always respected it.
The ethical implications from U.S military forces have claimed that psychologists are involved in horrifying the prisoners and they have different ways to obtain the required information from them. The first mistake that they make is to take the consent from the prisoners when they are not stable, when they are in hurry or when they are already facing the mental torture. They do not read the full permission or the consent form that what psychologists want from them and sign it. It should be eliminated and the rule should be changed. The consent should be given and filled according to the military laws and regulations. They are involved in beating, horror torture, pushing them into extreme hot or cold water, smacking them in walls, electric shocks, white noise for a long period, yelling on them, the prisoners are forced to be naked, they are exposed to the phobias, prolonged stress postures, they are not given proper feedings etc. all these are the actions that the psychologists adopt and force the prisoners to tell the secrets or the information they do not want to expose. The defense forces are totally against these actions and have recommended a permanent ban on the positions of psychologists. The military forces are of the view that they have many ways to torture or punish the criminals but they do not recommend it during the CIA interviews or military interrogations. It is because these are only the sessions where the investigation is being done and there is no need of torture. The interview panel come in front of suspected person and ask the usual questions. No one is allowed to go against the ethics until and unless they are proved or declared as criminals. Again, it is the duty of the military forces to decide the fate not the psychologists. They do not have this job to do. Their job was to console the prisoners and to study their behavior to help the national security forces but the case has gone opposite. A lot of live examples in U.S has led the military forces and national defense department to take this action and a lot of ethical implications have arose. APA wants the ban to be returned and want to work for interrogations but the experts from the military forces are totally against it and they do not want to involve them anymore in their meetings. They are of the view that they can handle the prisoners themselves in a legal and a safe way accordingly. The end of this cold war is not known yet.